This is not how scientific discussion works. The person who makes a claim has to present evidence for the claim. If it is not an own argument, but reference to scientific source, this has to include a quote or some own verbal summary of some claim made in the literature, together with a reference to the particular paper. Postings in such forums are open to everybody, even to those who have not read any scientific literature. General accusations of type "read the literature" make no sense, except as a personal attack. If somebody shows some error, the appropriate reaction is to correct the error, and if necessary to refer to some source where one can read more details about the particular question where the error occurred. For elementary errors, even wikipedia may be sufficient, for more subtle things references to textbooks, reviews, or even original articles. Maybe, but once you give no quote and no reference, it counts only as your personal fantasy claim. Feel free to present what "volatility" refers to in the "research" you name "AGW research", by presenting a quote, with reference, of the correct definition, and showing that the differences are really relevant (that means not simply word games). That would mean that the areas where we have such climate now should be deserts, or at least not usable for any agriculture now. That means, your sources are simply alarmists. No. 20% more arid would be 80% less arid, that sounds plausible if the average is more precipitation. Ok, there may be some part which is neutral (not enough change to cross thresholds in whatever direction). What I expect is only that the areas which become more arid are smaller than those which become less arid. So 20% crossing some threshold toward more arid, and 40% crossing some threshold toward less arid would be also inside of what I expect.