What’s the Matter With the Colorado River?

[Matt Beasley]

What’s the Matter With the Colorado River?
Letters, May 3, 2022, WSJ

The shrinking Colorado River is only the beginning of what
will be a major global shortage of fresh water in the next
decades (“Shrinking Colorado River Starts to Trim Arizona’s
Water Supply,” U.S. News, April 25). Despite our efforts at
carbon reduction, warming oceans and atmosphere will continue
due to the accumulated energy in the ecosystem, allowing the
atmosphere to hold more water, resulting in less rainfall.
When it does rain, it will tend to be torrential, resulting in
flooding that we aren’t equipped to capture in reservoirs or
aquifers. The real challenge is the development of massive
desalination capacity to refill reservoirs and aquifers,
combined with new infrastructure to capture and transport
torrential rainfall.
--Larry Isacson, Laguna Niguel, Calif.

Climate-change activists blame the warming of the climate for
the diminishing flow of the Colorado River and the reduced
capacity of its reservoirs. While the planet is warming, the
problem in this case is the tremendous growth of population in
the last 20 years in states that depend on the river for water.

Restrictions are the first thoughts that come to our leaders’
minds with each report of diminished capacity. Their solutions
are analogous to putting a Band-Aid on a cancer. What is needed
are bold ideas for increasing supply. Instead of depending on the
snow melt alone to refresh the river, we should consider capturing
excessive, damaging water in other regions of the country, such as
the Midwest, and moving it westward.
--Bill Mandrola, Phoenix
--------------------
[Comments]
Scott Wade, 4 May, 2022
You are located in a desert, you add in a few million new people
to the area and add in golf courses, pools, and lawns. Then you
blame it on climate change. Can’t make this stuff up.
-----------
Alta Rugar, 3 May, 2022
It has been known for decades that the water of the Colorado
River has been over allocated. I became aware of this over 50
years ago. The years upon which the allocations of the river's
water determined were years of abnormally high flows. We are
now forced to deal with reality instead of dreams.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-river-water-supply-climate-change-reservoir-population-11651522340

[*Hemidactylus*]

Matt Beasley <less...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What’s the Matter With the Colorado River?
> Letters, May 3, 2022, WSJ
>

[snip copypaste]

What the fuck is wrong with you? You just today posted 5 offtopic threads
of copypaste regurgitated from the Wall Street Journal? Does that exceed
fair use?

Have you no knowledge of topical subjects or ideas of your own? Obnoxious
much?

Weren’t you supposed to be the poster boy for antinatalism or retrospective
abortion? How’s that working out for you?

[Matt Beasley]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Matt Beasley wrote:
> > What’s the Matter With the Colorado River?
> > Letters, May 3, 2022, WSJ
> >
> [snip copypaste]
>

> What the fsck is wrong with you? You just today posted 5 offtopic threads

> of copypaste regurgitated from the Wall Street Journal? Does that exceed
> fair use?
> Have you no knowledge of topical subjects or ideas of your own? Obnoxious
> much?
> Weren’t you supposed to be the poster boy for antinatalism or retrospective
> abortion? How’s that working out for you?

--------------------
22 hours ago, Replying to @NOAAClimate
Each species has natural enemies that keep its
numbers in check. The U.N. projects that we'll
rise to 8, 9 then 10 billion & level out. Is that
the plan? What's the plan? Who's the author of
the plan? I was talking to a professor in 2020,
& he said: "There is no plan."
-----------
22 hours ago, Replying to @NOAAClimate
Extending life spans artificially by suppressing
communicable diseases is a selfish decision at the
expense of other critters, future generations, and
the environment! Nowhere else in Nature does a
population increase indefinitely without a crash!
-------------
22 hours ago, Replying to @NOAAClimate
If we had stayed at world population 4 billion, we
wouldn't have climate change, the refugee crisis,
decimation of wildlife, & environmental degradation!
People thought they could do whatever they wanted,
and get away with it, and they were wrong!
-----------
23 hours ago, Replying to @NOAAClimate
The media needs to be interviewing Ecologists.
They're looking at the whole biosphere. Doctors,
epidemiologists, and politicians are just looking
at a piece of the picture, whatever suits them!
There's nothing "normal" about adding one billion
people every 12 years!
---------------
23 hours ago, Replying to @NOAAClimate
The scientists called for Zero Population Growth 50 years ago;
they were looking at our ecological footprint & projecting
into the future, & nobody else was! Nothing was debunked;
it was ignored!
--
--

[Dexter]

Matt Beasley wrote:

-----------------------------

I knew there was a reason you were in my kill file.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.

--
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always
of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
- paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

[Matt Beasley]

----------------
If you already know it all, then there's no need to learn anything new!
--
--

[Glenn]

Well aren't you the dandy.

>
> --
> The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
> the same god as the many ancient gods of past
> civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
> monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
> wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
> beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
> of people who say they serve him. They are always
> of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
> - paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson

Lie.

Spurious Quotation

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/christian-god-three-headed-monsterspurious-quotation

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3202

But you're too stupid and biased to see it.

[Dexter]

Glenn wrote:

> > ---| snip of text irrelevent to Glenn's comment |---

> >
> > The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
> > the same god as the many ancient gods of past
> > civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
> > monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one
> > wishes to know more of this raging, three headed
> > beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
> > of people who say they serve him. They are always
> > of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
> > - paraphrased from the writings of Thomas Jefferson
>
> Lie.
>
> Spurious Quotation
>
>
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/christian-god-three-headed-monsterspurious-quotation
>
> https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3202
>
> But you're too stupid and biased to see it.

-----------------------------
Oh, Glenn. (Sigh) I realize your education was woefully inadequate
but at some point one might hope you would work just a bit harder
at accurately comprehending the written word. I invite you to reread
the final line of my sig line and see if that alters your understanding
at all.

That it will is debatable but aside from that suggestion, I have nothing
to offer you.

--
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and
there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism
has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good
as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

You got that last one right.

"It actually contains some known phrases of Jefferson's, but they are compounded with almost certainly false statements into a highly misrepresentative whole. Jefferson's own opinions on Jesus, God, Christianity and general opinions about them were far more complex than is indicated in this statement."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

"to repeat something written or spoken using different words, often in a humorous form or in a simpler and shorter form that makes the original meaning clearer"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/paraphrase

Here, try some more "paraphrases":

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/spurious-quotations

[jillery]

On Tue, 17 May 2022 12:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
<less...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you already know it all, then there's no need to learn anything new!

Pedantically, if you literally know it all, then there's nothing new
to learn, by definition.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Burkhard]

jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 12:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
> <less...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you already know it all, then there's no need to learn anything new!
>
>
> Pedantically, if you literally know it all, then there's nothing new
> to learn, by definition.
>

Interesting, got me thinking :o) If one were to argue that "knows it
all" means "knows all and only all true propositions P" then I guess one
could argue that even someone like this could learn something new - it
would be all false stuff of course, but in a pinch I would argue that
one can learn false things, but not know false things.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:01:29 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Of course, "know it all" is almost always a metaphorical epithet
thrown at those who act as if they know it all, almost always by those
who think they really do know it all. However, those cases apply to
neither your comment nor mine.

Your comment also got me to thinking. ISTM that knowing all logically
implies knowing both all true propositions as true *and* all false
propositions as false, as two separate knowledge categories.
Alternately, it may be that knowing all true propositions as true
logically implies knowing all false propositions as false.

I acknowledge there are many more false propositions than there are
true ones. This suggests that knowing all true propositions is
insufficient by itself to know all false propositions. However, a
true proposition logically negates many false propositions, a
one-to-many correspondence. This restores the sufficiency of knowing
all true propositions as true.

So either way, someone who knows it all knows *both* true and false
propositions, explicitly or implicitly. So your suggested
possibility, of not knowing some false proposition, would be a
logically invalid case.

[Matt Beasley]

jillery wrote:
> Burkhard > wrote:
> >jillery wrote:

-----------------------------
All you atheists take everything way too literally! Sky pixies! lol
--
--

[jillery]

That's a good way to reply to willfully stupid trolls.

[Burkhard]

excellent point - and a know it all would also know sufficient logic to
be able to see the connection. I will update my beliefs accordingly!

[jillery]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 12:20:22 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

If I'm not mistaken, in a classic example of the diplomatic arts, you
just called both of us know-it-alls.