without any mention of the rape and genocide that was committed there

A drought in Africa??? What are the odds? OH yeah, warmers, drought have happened in Africa FOR EVER.

IF you want to claim AGW causes droughts, you first have to show it GLOBALLY. Forget that didn't ya? Yeah, when US has a cold winter, it is weather, but Darfur having a drought is??? WEATHER!!!

You FIRST have to show that GLOBALLY droughts are increasing, but OOPSEY DAISY:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...

Now here is my REAL problem. We have people like Gary F and Pegminer here, who ARE climate "scientists". As such, they are supposed to be neutral and care more about science being accurately represented.

And what does Gary F do? He insults "deniers" for bring this up. This article is PURPOSEFULLY LYING. They have no cause to blame AGW on drought in Darfur, neither is it EVEN MORAL to balme AGW, when the clear cause of people leaving Darfur, was genocide. It is an atrocious LIE.

And the "scientists" who are supposed to be for SCIENCE, care more about politics.

SO Gary F, I have been saying there is some warming occurring. That we need to take some actions, but it is NOT a catastrophe, because the science does not back catastrophe.

And what do I mean by that???

1.) Tracking the rise in temps linearly gives only about 1.5 degrees of rise by 2100, meaning we have time to bring new techs to market without rushing them. Becaue that is really the solution, isn't it??? Your tax plan is just a way to rush new techs to market. The taxing isn't going to reduce CO2, the new techs are, RIGHT???

2.) There is no increase in droughts globally over the past 60 years, meaning that we still do not have a link between AGW and droughts. And if one exists, clearly it is not going to be large, otherwise we would have seen an indication by now.

3.) Crop production is increase faster than the popualtion. So much so, evidently, that we can afford to use 4.9 billion bushels of corn each year to make ethanol. SOO, crop failure problems are not so great that they will cause massive problems within the next say 50 years.

Now #1-3 are actually true. Not opinions, but truth based upon OBSERVATION. You know, the scientific method. Not the new scientific method where we take the word of a model that is consistently overestimating. I am more old school. I like the OLD scientific method that has worked for centuries.

BUT I may be entirely wrong. I have been crediting peole liek yourself for actually being scientists. Biased, no doubt, but scientists. So I credited the increases as actually from observation. BUT, do you see your level of BIAS??? Do you see how you appear to have absolutely no concern for science, but only politics???

People like yourself control the data. You "correct" the data. You work with the data from gathering to the final product. Can you really be trusted??? And IF your bias so affects your judgment, that you attack "deniers" for CORRECTLY pointing out LIES, what assurance do I have that it does not affect your judgment enough to screw with the data???

Really? One person said I can go and look at the data myself. Of course that person is not aware of the MANY YEARS it would take for a single person to write all the necessary programs to handle, standardize and assimilate that data into a cohesive model of global temperatures over time. Nor the cost.

Why is this even necessary? Why should I be questioning your motivations? Why are you not acting like a scientist?

Edit:

Oh Goody, Pegminer joined. Note how Pegminer AVOIDS saying anything he knows would be a LIE, like AGW caused a drought in Darfur. But also notice how it can be inferred. You see, he knows very well that there is not enough evidence to justify even linking droughts to AGW globally, let alone in specific locations. BUT, he is more interested in his political view than actually coming out against such obvious lies. So he skates as close to the lying line as possible. Surely the actions of a scientist???

Pegminer,

SO you are basically admitting I am right, with the caveat that you think it is possible.

I don't believe in Bigfoot, BUT will believe in Bigfoot WHEN I SEE EVIDENCE.

YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE. You are right, AGW may actually CAUSE droughts. BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

You BELIEVE so much that you want monetary public policies changed and you justify it via something that you have no evidence is occurring. Science is not telling us anything yet. In fact, science does not talk. It is simply the study of the physical via observation and experimentation.

Furhter, you cannot prove the kind of negative you are proposing. If you were to say that X amount of AGW will not cause a X% increase in droughts, you could show that. Or will not cause a Y% decrease in droughts (which owuld likely come with an increase in flooding), you could show this. The minute you place NO CHANGE, the amount of observations needed is infinite.

So you are right again, I haven't proved that negative, BUT it is impossible to.

Edit:

Pegminer, I went to the Air Force Academy. I can guarantee I took more science, engineering and math courses than you did. Not that it matters, as your accusation is baseless and without any support.

Link one a jpg that just says "Darfur Genocide"

Link two is blocked by yahoo.

back tracking on link one I found this connected to the diagram the only item not a diagram in the directory that talks about Genocide.

http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/wp-conte...

This does appear to even be from Scientific American or mention climate..

I can't comment on the second link as it does not work.

Many terrible things have happened in Darfur and only a denier would try and use that as a talking point but the article states the starter to all this was a drought, that is certainly linked to the climate, what happened after was down to peoples reactions and desperation.

All that is covered in the link to the real item supplied by Gary F

Peg links to a piece of scientific garbage and then mocks you for pointing out the outrageous excuses for those actually committing genocide. I guess their point is we can't blame those committing genocide since it is really our fault because we are emitting CO2. It wasn't drought that led to the genocide in Darfur. It was purely politically driven. If someone is willing to blame genocide on CO2, that shows they aren't scientifically motivated. They have political motivations. I hate to beat a dead horse but that horse just won't stay dead.

The connection between droughts and genocide is thousands of years old Kano. All you're doing is showing that climate change is often accompanied by conflict (that's probably just the opposite of what you thought you were proving).

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/to...

EDIT: Raisin Caine is a statistician, so he knows he can make claims about there not being enough statistical evidence to demonstrate particular effects that are expected from global warming. What he doesn't mention is that there is also not enough evidence to rule out such effects either.

If I gave Raisin Caine the results from rolling a pair of dice 10 or 20 times, he would probably tell me that there is no statistical evidence that the dice are loaded. But what if I showed him the designs of how the dice were constructed, and x-ray evidence consistent with them being loaded?

The point is that we can wait until we have irrefutable statistical evidence--at which point civilization is probably screwed--or we can pay attention to what the science is telling us. To Raisin Caine, science consists of nothing more than linear extrapolation. Whatever is happening now will continue to happen in the future, regardless of what the physics tells us.

Another EDIT: What I am saying Raisin Caine, is that your beliefs are based on IGNORING science. Did you take any science classes when you were in college?

I see you have an inability to read. The article states that the conflict arose as, or partly due to, the consequence of drought.

http://www.lameta.univ-montp1.fr/Documen...

It is a statement as to conflicts that can arise when resources are scarce.

Scientific American is to science as Popular Mechanics is to a screwdriver. It's just populous drivel that feeds the excitement level of lower IQ egg head wantabes.

Just shows what garbage this rag has become. It once was credible. Back in the seventies it started promoting the Gore, Lamb, Ehrlich, and Hansen crap of an imminent Ice Age and that was the time to not renew my subscription.

Your reference says nothing - at all - about global warming and Darfur - a fact Sagebrush never noticed because he did not read the article, but lies that he did.

You probably mean this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slides...

It is a simplistic interpretation, to be sure, although less simplistic than every Denier claim about climate and science,

cool

it's way over your head

and it's hilarious how conservatives prefer blogs over real science

which is proof of their destructive war on science

without any mention of the rape and genocide that was committed there

no

maybe