Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 12, 2014

A northern Arizona town 60 miles from the Grand Canyon's South Rim is running out of sources for water. Restaurants don't give patrons a glass of water, residents are fined for using potable water on their lawns and cars and businesses are hauling water in to fill swimming pools. The town of 3,000 received six inches of rain the past six months, half the norm, and its reservoirs are drying up. "I still have hope God will send us the rain," said resident Jan Bardwell.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

lee_the_agent

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"I still have hope God will send us the rain," said resident Jan Bardwell

Is anyone else appalled that these doughy conservative poop-kickers are praying for rain because they're too leaping stupid to believe in climate change? Yeah speak to the clouds like Elijah. That should do the trick. Why would science have any answers?

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-12 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Officials in the community about 60 miles from the Grand Canyon's South Rim have clamped down on water"

Government Overreach! How dare they tell the free people of Arizona to manage a dwindling resource!
Everyone knows communities and the people living there within do not need "gubment" governing or otherwise telling them what to do!

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-05-12 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Headline should be "Mojave Desert town running out of water"

Can't help but think of Sam Kinison on tackling world hunger...

www.youtube.com

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-12 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kingman's first, then Barstow and San Bernadino.

#4 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-12 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

A town in the desert is running short of water?

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-05-12 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stock up on beer.

#6 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-12 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did they update the article? It says Williams not Kingman. Kingman gets their water from the mighty Colorado river. Unless Mead and Mojave go dry then Kingman won't run out of water.

It's the central valley that you nutjobs should be worried about.

#7 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-12 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good job though Lee.
A google search of Kingman AZ running out of water puts your thread in second place.
www.google.com

LMAO

#8 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-12 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I still have hope God will send us the rain," said resident Jan Bardwell

Is anyone else appalled that these doughy conservative poop-kickers are praying for rain because they're too leaping stupid to believe in climate change? Yeah speak to the clouds like Elijah. That should do the trick. Why would science have any answers?

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent


You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers.
These are people of the land.
The common clay of the new West.
You know... morons.
www.youtube.com

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-12 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

This will teach you lowlifes living in
the desert. What the heck do you expect? Why? You need to move up north.

#10 | Posted by coyote at 2014-05-12 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

they're too leaping stupid to believe in climate change?

It's not climate change you idiot, its a desert.

desert
Houghton Mifflin
n.noun
1.A barren or desolate area, especially.
2.A dry, often sandy region of little rainfall, extreme temperatures, and sparse vegetation.
3.A region of permanent cold that is largely or entirely devoid of life.
4.An apparently lifeless area of water.
5.An empty or forsaken place; a wasteland.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-12 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

It's kinda like moving next to an airport, and bitching about the airplanes.

#12 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-05-12 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Everyone knows communities and the people living there within do not need "gubment" governing or otherwise telling them what to do!

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-05-12 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

A foolish statement, local community governments have ever right to restrict water usage in times of drought. The federal government is what real conservatives and libertarians fear; grow up and learn to spell government correctly.

Is anyone else appalled that these doughy conservative poop-kickers are praying for rain because they're too leaping stupid to believe in climate change?#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-12 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag

Like so many on this site, all you can do is mock and ridicule (real classy for an anonymous blogger), but no scientist can prove a drought in the desert is caused by global warming. Maybe it is happening because IT IS A DESERT!

I always wonder if people get a smug feeling of self-satisfaction insulting and mocking other people because really, they are miserable inside.

#13 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-12 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you insulting and mocking those people?

#14 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-12 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 - No, I was asking a question, but forgot the question mark

#15 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-12 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Like so many on this site, all you can do is mock and ridicule (real classy for an anonymous blogger), but no scientist can prove a drought in the desert is caused by global warming. Maybe it is happening because IT IS A DESERT!"

Yeah, cuz droughts are only happening in places we consider deserts. Buy a clue. YOu can deny, deny, deny, won't change reality.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-12 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 - I do not deny nor confirm, I question. This is what scientists do.

I question the motivations, the depth and breadth of climate science (it is very young and interdisciplinary field), and most importantly I question our computational power to model the earth (spatial and temporal resolution).

I question our knowledge of the earth's internal systems (i.e. core and mantle). I do not follow blindly because it fits my political agenda (although that was not always true).

Scientists have been wrong many times in the past; consensus is not science, predication is, and in that realm climatologists have failed. How many hurricanes will there be in 2014, 2015, etc. When climate models begin to predict with some accuracy these kinds of events, then I will be convinced they know what they are talking about.

#17 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-12 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

but no scientist can prove a drought in the desert is caused by global warming. Maybe it is happening because IT IS A DESERT!

And the fact that it is 50% more deserty is just a coincidence. Like all those superstorms and stuff.

Maybe Williams will have more luck with their trickle down God than Perry and the Texans. After all, Dubya's not from there.

#18 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-12 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18 - Yeah, I am sure this is the first time in tens of thousands of years that this area has experienced a drought.

#19 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-12 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

hugeknot,

The mighty Colorado is dry by the time it reaches Mexico. Lake Mead in Vegas is down 300 feet and Lake Powell is down 150 feet. It doesn't have enough water to honor all its treaties. The story of the west is the story of water scarcity.

#20 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-05-12 11:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20 - I have wondered if the drought is made worse, or even caused, by poor water management between the states. I have heard of this problem years back.

#21 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-12 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

When climate models begin to predict with some accuracy these kinds of events, then I will be convinced they know what they are talking about.
#17 | Posted by danv

www.washingtonpost.com

"When I was a student in the late 1960s and 70s," says Uccellini, "we were just getting 24-hour forecasts of rainfall amounts and temperatures for the first time. Our goal was a 48-hour forecast. . . . Now we can predict snowstorms early enough for stores to have winter storm sales. It's amazing."

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by danv

Dudev, you don't have a clue what science is.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

I have wondered if the drought is made worse, or even caused, by poor water management between the states.

My guess is it's all the dumb[...] snowbirds who move to a desert yet still think they're entitled to a lush, green lawn.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-13 03:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

As climate changes these fools will continue to say things like its a desert.

Well, the desert is growing. And the average rainfalls are changing.

Average. Look it up.

Same goes for all sorts of habitats. Scientists can prove it. They can see the Time dilation difference between your head and your feet. Figuring out changes in average climates is easy. And 97 percent agree.

#25 | Posted by klifferd at 2014-05-13 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

As climate changes these fools will continue to say things like its a desert.

Well, it is a desert, klif. It hasn't been densely populated in history until a few decades ago. Is it a wonder that the water is drying up? There were a lot of Indian civilizations in that part of the world who disbanded because of drought conditions a thousand years ago and their population was a small fraction of what the same desert supports now.

So yes, I think it's fair to say things like, "It's a desert". It is, and there is a long history of it failing to support humans long before climate change (or whatever it is called this month)

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-13 08:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

I question the motivations, the depth and breadth of climate science (it is very young and interdisciplinary field), and most importantly I question our computational power to model the earth (spatial and temporal resolution).

Are you a lay person with a healthy degree of skepticism or is your skepticism due to your professional knowledge and experience in the field of climate science or some closely related field?

#27 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-05-13 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

• Hurricanes: The century-long trend in Hurricanes is slightly down, not up. According to the National Hurricane Center, in 2013, "There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982."
According to Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, "We are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)"
• Tornadoes: Don't worry, Kansas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there has been no change in severe tornado activity. "There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."
• Extreme heat and cold temperatures: NOAA's U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five above the mean.
• Severe drought/extreme moisture: While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to extreme drought/moisture in the last few years, the 1930's, 40's and 50's were more extreme in this regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average.
• Cyclones: Maue reports: "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low."

news.investors.com

Here's the problem: 15-50 years ago all sorts of predictions based upon climate models were made about what would happen in the near future. In some instances we've already passed some of these predictions - for example: "By 2013....."

All of those predictions vastly overstated not only the degree of warming we'd experience but also the negative impacts - severe weather, etc. Science is NOT a discipline that is based upon consensus. ALL theories are supposed to be questioned and challenged.

Apparently, the AGW theory is different. The Scientific Method doesn't apply and we are supposed to accept this theory as a matter of faith.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-13 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is the jury still out on gravity?

#29 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-13 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

All of you genius's that are saying it's a normal problem in the desert understand that the water source for such towns is usually someplace upstream, right?

The Imperial Valley usually supplies a significant amount of the nations farm produce (maybe not this year, due to the same drought), yet it's in a desert.

#30 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-13 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The stuff the water company here in Maricopa county calls "water" is the absolute worst. Nobody drinks it, We buy our water at Walmart,

#31 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-13 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you live on the seashore, or in areas that get pummeled with storms, or in areas such as AZ that are supposedly running out of water, then those costs including insurance should be borne by the residents in those often exclusive areas, instead of being passed on (redistributed) to residents in often less economically viable and less exclusive areas. The true costs of business and home ownership need to be predominantly carried by those living in the areas and not shouldered by others.

#32 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-13 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by JeffJ

They were not all overstated. The media did grab on to the most sensational claims though. The current drought in California and the rest of the South West was predicted.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-05-13 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#33

Fair enough, Pete.

Having said that, I would argue that my point still stands.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-13 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Science is NOT a discipline that is based upon consensus. ALL theories are supposed to be questioned and challenged.

That's not really a good statement. Science often relies on consensus when dealing with complex issues. Even simple ones. There's no experimentally verifiable mechanism for gravity, but the consensus that it obeys an inverse square law is rock-solid.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is the jury still out on gravity?

#29 | POSTED BY HARRY_POWELL

No.

And the jury is still not out on the fact that hydrochloric acid dissolves sea shells. Why? Because a controlled experiment can be run and every time it's run the results are the same.

Macro-climate consists of a myriad of variables, very few of which are controllable.

Give me 20 planet earths and allow me to control ALL variables except for CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then measure the results of various levels of CO2 in said atmosphere over different periods of times and then compare the results.

Now, I understand that in many, many instances controlled experiments are not possible and given this we shouldn't abandon attempts to understand the world around us to the best of our abilities. But to act as if the AGW theory is "settled science" should be insulting to anybody who reveres the discipline of science for what it is.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-13 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

. But to act as if the AGW theory is "settled science" should be insulting to anybody who reveres the discipline of science for what it is.

Some people don't know the true meaning or discipline of "science", Jeff. And it's usually these folks who use the word "science" as a crutch to justify their arguments.

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-13 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

But to act as if the AGW theory is "settled science" should be insulting to anybody who reveres the discipline of science for what it is.
#36 | Posted by JeffJ

People who aren't scientists need a way to understand what science has figured out, and how sure the scientist are.

Calling it "settled science" indicates the evidence is solid. Sort of like the theory of evolution has so much support behind it as to be no longer a controversial opinion from a scientific perspective. (And I don't think anthropogenic climate change quite reaches the surety of evolution, but probably only because the process of scientific inquiry which resulted in the theory of evolution has a head start of hundreds of years.)

That's what settled science means. It's not scientific language. It's an attempt to explain science to people who don't understand science. Which turns out to be most people. Even you got some stuff wrong in #28.

Hey, there's a wikipedia article on scientific consensus, en.wikipedia.org
"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism."

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-13 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

And it's usually these folks who use the word "science" as a crutch to justify their arguments.

From both sides, I'd add.

As for ALL theories are supposed to be questioned and challenged, I'd say that's a gross oversimplification.

Any twit can ask questions. The key is for them to be informed, evidence based questions with the intention of moving the field forward.

Most "skeptics" seem to think they're being "scientific" by just trying to tear everything down.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 02:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

As for ALL theories are supposed to be questioned and challenged, I'd say that's a gross oversimplification.

I kind of thought I added context to that with #36.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 02:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

#38 - Snoop-Dog

Pretty solid stuff in that post. I mostly agree (not that my agreement is what makes it solid).

You succinctly presented a well-thought and well-articulated summation of a complex issue - not an easy feat.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 02:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

:-)

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 02:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

There doesn't have to be in depth science...

Simple water budget!

#44 | Posted by wurster at 2014-05-14 03:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I kind of thought I added context to that with #36.

You saved it at the end by acknowledging that in climate science it is often damn near impossible to apply rigorous experimental methods to it.

But that doesn't mean it lacks the ability to observe phenomena, form hypotheses and then test those predictions with further observation.

When it comes to AGW arguments I mainly concern myself with preventing people from slandering science's good name as I'm not an expert in any of the various fields that have contributed to the body of knowledge. Your posts are some of the better on the topic as you actually seem to have thought about it and offer more than 'duh...the climate has always cycled...AL GORE!'.

It's those folks that I seriously hope stay home on election days.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 03:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

#45 | POSTED BY JPW

Thank you.

You have legitimate gripes with the Rush Limbaughs of the "denier" spectrum. Your gripes are legitimate.

My issue is MORE focused on the "we must cut carbon emissions by ceding even more sovereignty to a centralized power - regardless of tangible benefits in spite of costs" crew.

On this issue the scientific arguments often get conflated with the political arguments. This is unfortunate as the 2 belong in separate arenas.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 03:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

On this issue the scientific arguments often get conflated with the political arguments. This is unfortunate as the 2 belong in separate arenas.

Agreed.

Far too many judge the policy proposals through their political lens then judge the science based on the political conclusion(s).

They blatantly have it backasswards yet still want to be taken seriously on the topic.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-14 03:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's what your perspective more or less sounds like to me, JeffJ:

"I was going to do what you wanted, but since you rudely demanded it instead of asking politely, I'm going to refuse out of spite alone. I hope you learned your lesson."

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 04:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's not accurate, Snoop.

BUT, "this is what you sound like to me" is MUCH better than "this is what you believe."

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-14 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoof... I love your understanding of science

"That's not really a good statement. Science often relies on consensus when dealing with complex issues. Even simple ones. There's no experimentally verifiable mechanism for gravity, but the consensus that it obeys an inverse square law is rock-solid."

It's not a consensus that gravity obeys an inverse square... it's experimentally verified and reproducible.

Those that are questioning the science behind AGW aren't denying climate change... we want to see the algorithms actually predict something, and have it verify AND have it be repeatable.

Should be a simple hurdle for a settled science.

Someone else questioned a 'questioners' background or credentials... I have a B.S. in Meteorology.

#50 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-14 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's not a consensus that gravity obeys an inverse square... it's experimentally verified and reproducible.

The mechanism responsible for gravity is unknown. Yet the operation of gravity is extremely predictable. Nobody would question that it follows an inverse square law. That's what I was getting at.

I mean, people do perform experiments on this, I think they've narrowed the exponent down to something like 2.0000000 +/- .0000003.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not a consensus that gravity obeys an inverse square... it's experimentally verified and reproducible.

It's both. What there isn't is what in layman terms you might call "proof."

Gravity should be even more suspect than global warming to the denier crowd, because the precise mechanism of action of gravity is unknown. Whereas with global warming we know full well CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we're pumping out 50x more than volcanoes do.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

since we know the exact cause, seemingly, ... then we should have no problem coming up with some verifiable experiments?

What's that? the models have been awful at it?... I wonder if we haven't considered all the proper inputs then.

#53 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-14 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

since we know the exact cause, seemingly, ... then we should have no problem coming up with some verifiable experiments?

And we don't.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's easily experimentally verified.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, that's easily experimentally verified.
CO2 is readily absorbed by water, lowering pH, that's easily experimentally verified.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

great!

now take the models that take these factors as variables... extrapolate over time, and lets see if they make accurate climate predictions.

oh? they've done that? ... but the predicted values didn't match what actually occurred? Oh my, how could that be?

seems like there might need to be more work done before this is actually settled science.

Probably on the right path, but it's not settled science.

#55 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-05-14 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

So your objection is to the term "settled science," which isn't even a scientific term? Not to the consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening?

See #48.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gravity should be even more suspect than global warming to the denier crowd, because the precise mechanism of action of gravity is unknown.

Although not a denier, nor acceptor. From wikipedia,

a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

SO not so much of a mystery, and GR theory has been proven correct by predicting observable phenomena without needing revision. With the caveat that the coupled PDE are so mathematical complex not all solutions have been found.

#57 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-14 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

GR theory has been proven correct by predicting observable phenomena without needing revision.

So has the theory that CO2 is a greenhosue gas.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-14 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort