Scientists predicting historic dry summer for much of the U.S.

A defendent without a pot to piss in is essentially suit-proof for all practical purposes. However, the "gentleman" in question has stated previously here he has at least one personal pension would could be garnished.

No responsible insurance company would dream of ever granting him any such thing.

That's Cursitor Doom's story - at the moment.

desperate attempt to prop up the Euro, the survival of which was very doubtful.

Cursitor Doom wants us to believe that he had enough wealth - where the government could see it - to justify his flit.

Not that there was actually any capital to seize.

You are entitled to claim all sorts of implausible things. We are entitled to think that you post loads of bizarre fantasies.

It's impossible to libel an anonymous troll. As soon as you exposed your real identity you could then claim that you were being libelled, but Interpol would promptly pounce on.

We've been suggesting that to you for some time now. You don't seem to have got the message.

Climate change isn't exactly state dogma.

previously here he has at least one personal pension would could be garnished.

Garnisheed.

And the prospect of being sued for libel by two anonymous trolls would be worth bothering getting insured against?

Cursitor Doom and Flyguy post the kind of nonsense that guarantees that they are going to be subject to ridicule and contempt. Admitting their real names and identities would get them shunned on the streets - the rat-infested alleys - where they live.

Oh me oh my. You have made so many false assumptions in the above I simply cannot address them all now. I'll deal with it later when time permits. That's a promise.

Not so much assumptions as rational hypotheses. Anonymous trolls have so much they can lie about.

You may react to it later. Dignifying plea bargaining as some kind of "deal" is the sort of self-promotion that you do make a habit of.

As worthless as everything else you post.

Outside the US west coat, there are cold streams running, which do not evaporate much water and hence little rainfall. Areas with cold streams like NW or SW ends of Africa have dry areas like Sahara and Kalahari deserts.

You are lucky that the US West coast has so far receives the current amount of rain, but you should be prepared that the lucky situation doesn't last forever.

We get most of our water from the Sierra snowpack.

California legally qualifies as a desert. What's crazy is that we grow mass amounts of nuts, cotton, wheat, and rice. Residences use a few per cent of the available water, but we get rationed in dry years.

Just remember every time you repeat your stupid remarks counts as a further publication. Every time you post something of evidential value I archive it. Agent puts it in a separate file with a little padlock icon next to it. I'm seeing an awful lot of padlocks next to your name, Bill.

"Us"? Who are you speaking on behalf of now? This newsgroup? I assume you have their permission?

You'll need to prove that, along with the rest of your somewhat more objectionable claims.

"We"? See above. What YOU believe is a matter of supreme indifference to me. However, if other people change their views of me as a consequence of lies you post, then that becomes a very different matter.

I'm afraid it's not as simple as you assume. That would normally be true, but it's not applicable here. Whilst I may be anonymous to YOU and your dwindling band of apologists, my real identity is widely known - and has been for 25 years - to those on this group I deem worthy of confiding it in. Many close associations have through this forum been formed: personal meetings where geographically possible and phone and email contact where not. This has proved mutually beneficial in many ways to myself and those I have contracted business with. Your fantastical and unsubstantiated claims may cause them to doubt me; to shun and avoid me and consequently cost me both socially and financially. I'm not prepared to stand back and see you trash my good standing with your poisonous utterances.

I could claim I was being libeled if I revealed my identity? Haha. You would like that, wouldn't you Bill. Bait not accepted. You'll have to up your game, old man.

Note this very well: I gave you fair warning.

You looked it up? Good.

Most rational people would stop digging when they're in a hole. But you just keep on digging don't you Bill? Best go back to whatever lawyer you consulted and tell him you didn't quite give him the full picture the first time. Then you can ignore his sensible advice to STFU and go back to digging again. Dig, dig, dig, Bill. Dig, dig, dig.

A sufficiently high mountain range will force the clouds to rain/snow.

Unfortunately the land area between the ocean and the mountain range is quite large in California, so if the rain/snow fall in the mountain, not much is available on the low lands below the range on average.

The Pacific coast of Canada has a lot of rain and a rain forest due to the warm costal Alaska stream. The border between the cold stream around Mexico and the warm Alaska stream varies annually, so it should not be surprise, if you get less rainfall during some years.

Temperature and humidity variations are not a new thing. Even some biblical texts talk about seven good years followed by seven bad years in Egypt a few thousand years ago :-).

We take all the moisture and leave a tiny bit for Nevada. Driving east on I80, the trees stop and the casinos start at the state line.

It melts all year and comes down in the rivers and as groundwater. Perversely enough, the Truckee river (damned traitor) hooks around and heads east into Nevada.

We actually have some glaciers.

We get "atmospheric rivers", skinny snakes of rain that squirm around. Weather forecasts are sort of a joke.

As several wise man have said, "Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small." Usenet doubly so. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Actually, I knew the word well enough to realise that you'd spelled it wrong.

An anonymous troll posting from a rat-hole that he isn't willing to identify is supposed to be some kind of threat?

I'm supposed to consult a lawyer to get advice about deluded threats from an anonymous troll?

The proposition is that he - or she - would give me "sensible advice" which would serve your purposes is the kind of demented delusion that you post here all the time.

You just re-published your original libel. Untrimmed follow-ups count as republication (Godfrey vs. Demon Internet 2001). You're now straying into aggravated damages territory. I'd get some "sensible advice" if I were you.

Here's some sensible advice. You're demented. Clueless.

I'm slow, so I finally got the joke.

Scientists Predict.

Since your own posts expose you to all the ridicule and contempt that anybody could earn, I'm not libelling you. You may like to think that honest reporting of your idiosyncracies constitutes libel, but if you got yourself some sensible advice you 'd learn that it doesn't.

But you are a deluded half-wit, and I'm not, or at least not the same extent.

Prophets predict, scientists hypothesise. Climate scientists have access to a lot of data, and some pretty well established theory - none of which John Larkin and Anthony Watts know much about - and their hypotheses should be taken seriously. John Larkin is the joke here, and we don't take him seriously.

Clearly, that's a misreading. 'right now' means it's an observation, not prediction.

I guess I can't read either. I thought the thread title said "predicting."

I read one meta-study that says that linear extrapolation of current weather trends is more accurate than computer models.

Huh? Linear extrapolation IS a model, what does 'computer model' mean, and why is it different?

What timescale of 'current weather trends' is being considered? There's no way a five-day forecast can be made from a linear extrapolation from last week...