> I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Oh, sor

> I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Oh, sorry. I did misinterpret your comment. I might be getting a little punchy on this topic (this isn't the only place I've been having this argument -- I've really gotta quit doing this). (And thank you.) > If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower. FWIW I'm pretty optimistic about the long-term future, just not so much for the next 20 years or so, and I personally don't want to live through that particular transition. There's a ton of capital and vested interests in California; people will figure it out, probably roughly equal parts adjustments to how we live and engineering of the environment. For instance, if these conditions continue, it's going to become extraordinarily difficult for environmentalists to effectively oppose building new reservoirs, and as much as I usually agree with environmentalists, new reservoirs are one of the things that really need to happen in the state. > ...a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted. Totally honest question (which I might or might not rebut depending on your answer): what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I'm not aware of any findings of academic misconduct. > Or possibly increase supply through desalinization I'm not a big fan of desalinization on a large scale, personally, though I'm not totally informed on it. My understanding so far is that it's terribly expensive in both startup and ongoing costs (including energy costs), that there is still a significant distribution problem to be solved, and that it won't make economic sense during wet years when there is plentiful freshwater available everywhere (for a few months anyway). > or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. I'd be happier to see this (and it is underway: http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-delta-fix-for-big-gulps-when-drought-is-over http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-del...). There's a lot of storm runoff in wet years that gets shunted straight to the ocean; it would be nice if significant amounts of it were captured, so long as it didn't leave the Delta and similar areas vulnerable to seawater incursions during storm surges. > The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. I worry about this. I don't see agriculture as a net negative; I think we need to do as much as possible to make sure that they don't have to dramatically reduce demand. There are some aspects of it that are very screwy right now and need fixing (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-the-drought-grow-thirsty-crops-to-dig-deeper-wells http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-...) and I suspect there are some things that can be done, technologically, to maintain agricultural production with modest decreases in water supply, but I'd hate to see agriculture in the state slow down significantly. That would have effects on food supply all over the country (at least for a while until other areas started picking up the slack). > Where do you see as more promising? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 In short: I dunno. I'm open to suggestions. (edit: not sure what you said to invite downvotes, I don't think it's deserved fwiw.)