Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its pretty funny... first there wasn't enough "land" for everyone... then there wasn't enough "food" for everyone... then there wasn't enough "air" for everyone... logically, there wouldn't be enough "water" for everyone... and yet, everyone is still here today and growing in size (as well as individual sizes)... much to the disappointment of the eco-freaks who by the way still haven't been dismissed as having anything serious to say after all the "there isn't enough of ____" fill in the blank quotes....
Water problems will become a major issue globally in the near future. Prolong droughts will exacerbate the problem , and even periods of intense rainfall will do little to resolve shortages. Rising temperatures will make rainfall that falls evaporate quicker-
Major portions of the American heartland from about 85 West longitude- west, will see increasingly dry conditions in years to come.
Terrorism, will sink to a far lesser threat in years to come- as nations become embroiled in 'resource wars' over clean water, and food sources.
It should be easy then for you to support your claim. Go ahead, provide some sourcing, some actual data, something more than loose claims and references to content that has no proper support.
...So, can you provide factual support that isn't based on assumptions?
Define "proper support." If you'd read the supporting links to the articles, dating back several years, they would have lead you to supportive scientific data, depending upon your special version of ".
I posted the original link because I found it interesting. I am not the least bit interested in trying to convince you or anyone else of a single thing. I have no idea, nor do I care to know, why this is such an intensely personal issue for you and others.
So, go ahead, feel free to read and educate yourself, all on your own. Don't expect others to do if for you.
What's debatable is whether it's a crisis....it's not. Local water issues will be resolved without the need for catastrophic headlines just like any other supply/demand issue is.
Have you had a chance to look into how Hetch-Hetchy is doing?
Define "proper support." If you'd read the supporting links to the articles, dating back several years, they would have lead you to supportive scientific data, depending upon your special version of ".
I posted the original link because I found it interesting. I am not the least bit interested in trying to convince you or anyone else of a single thing. I have no idea, nor do I care to know, why this is such an intensely personal issue for you and others.
So, go ahead, feel free to read and educate yourself, all on your own. Don't expect others to do if for you.
I must have missed the initial link. It is not common that articles such as these link to the research they are summarizing.
I have no desire to pay 32 dollars to even begin to view the data collection and methodology used to make their claim. There is no proper abstract summarizing the basic components of their evaluation (data, methodology, etc...)
Did you pay for the nature article or do you simply rely on the media to "summarize" the validity of the position for you? If you have not, then how is it you can in good faith hold defense for it as you have? Would that not make you simply passing on information that even you yourself are not educated on?
It is not that I take the issue "personally", rather it is the fact that I have read many research papers of similar conclusive proclamations to which were found upon close inspection to be rooted in severe speculation, poor data collection, unfounded methodology, and resulted in no valid support for the speculations being made.
I have no desire to pay 32 dollars to even begin to view the data collection and methodology used to make their claim. There is no proper abstract summarizing the basic components of their evaluation (data, methodology, etc...)
As I'm sure you are aware, media rarely if ever report in detail; usually there are links to other articles from which information was gathered. How do you know that they've not "proper"ly summarized their data when you didn't pay the $32 to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Did you pay for the nature article or do you simply rely on the media to "summarize" the validity of the position for you? If you have not, then how is it you can in good faith hold defense for it as you have? Would that not make you simply passing on information that even you yourself are not educated on?
You can't honestly believe that is a logical thing to say. I did not pay anything, nor would I ever pay for supportive data that can be researched and gotten for free at a library as well as online, or through conversations with biologists and a limnologist (sp) as I have done. I take nothing written by any media at face value. Yet you assume that is what I do. You've seemingly determined that my posting the article [note it's an article, not a research paper] and 'holding defense' for it is based solely upon my reading that one article. I find that a fairly arrogant assumption on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
It is not that I take the issue "personally", rather it is the fact that I have read many research papers of similar conclusive proclamations to which were found upon close inspection to be rooted in severe speculation, poor data collection, unfounded methodology, and resulted in no valid support for the speculations being made.
Can't say I've read many research papers as you, just several. Are you really saying that every single one of the "many research papers" you've read are all incompetently written and have absolutely no valid support? Amazing...to the point of being unbelievable.
Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing with you. Be well ~
As I'm sure you are aware, media rarely if ever report in detail; usually there are links to other articles from which information was gathered. How do you know that they've not "proper"ly summarized their data when you didn't pay the $32 to find out.
Read the abstract. It is common practice to list the basic data/method/confidence within the abstracts summary. There is none listed, simply a statement of conclusion. That is what I was commenting on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina
You can't honestly believe that is a logical thing to say. I did not pay anything, nor would I ever pay for supportive data that can be researched and gotten for free at a library as well as online, or through conversations with biologists and a limnologist (sp) as I have done. I take nothing written by any media at face value. Yet you assume that is what I do. You've seemingly determined that my posting the article [note it's an article, not a research paper] and 'holding defense' for it is based solely upon my reading that one article. I find that a fairly arrogant assumption on your part.
It was an article to which you defended in basic position concerning the topic with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina
I see, and in your view of the history of the world there's never been a catastrophic climate change. Nor will there ever be one in our part of the world.
What you are missing is that this is a projection based upon historical and scientific data. A projection, not a prediction.
In fact, lack of potable water is a crisis in some parts of the world. But not in our cozy world. Therefore, if we can't see it and it's not in our front yard, it doesn't exist. Got it
The bold is what I quoted after you made this response. It is evident that you were defending the position to which the article attempts to conclude and my question to you was then concerning the support for such a position, specifically that which you provided as the link.
You corrected me that it was sourced to which I admitted missing, but as I mentioned, there is no discernible evidence of support within the abstract to make the claims you are making of the issue being based on any historical and scientific premise.
The fact that you admit that you did not read this paper and the fact that you defended the position using the claim as proper support of evidence shows that you simply argued a position without support while claiming the opposite.
/shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked Felina
Can't say I've read many research papers as you, just several. Are you really saying that every single one of the "many research papers" you've read are all incompetently written and have absolutely no valid support? Amazing...to the point of being unbelievable.
Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing with you. Be well ~
No, that would be a generalization. I made no such claim that "all" papers or "every single one" is as such.
What I said is that I have read a lot of research out there and have found many (not all) to be poorly constructed in their position due to the reasons I stated. That is, they were inconclusive due to those issues and were not proper means of support for any particular position.
This is why I was asking for the details of the sources you linked. If for instance I could have read the article sourced, I could have noted the data they used, the methodology they used to assess it, and the various factors to which they achieved their conclusion.
There is a big problem these days with politics pushing scientific process and the only way to segregate the trash from honest research is through more detailed evaluations. Taking ones word (even if it has letters behind it or hails from an organization with acronyms) as fact is counter to logical evaluation.
Its pretty funny... first there wasn't enough "land" for everyone... then there wasn't enough "food" for everyone... then there wasn't enough "air" for everyone... logically, there wouldn't be enough "water" for everyone... and yet, everyone is still here today and growing in size (as well as individual sizes)... much to the disappointment of the eco-freaks who by the way still haven't been dismissed as having anything serious to say after all the "there isn't enough of ____" fill in the blank quotes....
The problem is (I think) that people get (intentionally) told that there won't be enough water, air, land, fuel, etc, and everyone from real estate investors to the cap n trade profiteers exacerbates this to their own profit. Not to mention that I was a political part of the 'water wars' along the SC/NC/GA borders, and the machinations of who gets how much from the Savannah River were intense and ongoing, and became even moreso when the Savannah, GA-based and other industries as well as the expanding populations of the Hilton Head, SC and GA areas had withdrawn so much from the Floridian aquifer that it was suffering salt-water intrusion. One GA developer had started to build houses on property that had been 'promised' water access five years before, by the local entity - and had to leave a development of empty houses built and half-built because there was no potable water access.
Lots of folks want to live in places where there is simply not enough available water access to support them. Is there a shortage of water? Not if you ask the flooding-out people of North Dakota, Iowa, eastern Nebraska, Missouri, and Louisiana - the problem is proper management, and 50-year-old assumptions and engineering that don't/can't take into account the weather changes and resource fluctuations. After all, weren't we told that most of the country/world would be in drought due to climate change - and then they talked about the melting of the ice caps? Did it occur to no one that increased temps that would be blamed for increased hurricanes and storms would take more water up into the sky, producing more clouds, and dumping it more prodigiously everywhere in the form of snow and rain - and that melting ice caps would simply add to that?
Me, I'm in favor of improved desalinization technology - the world is 3/4 water, after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
