No. Please pay better attention to what other people are saying: AGW will - by prediction, which is gathering increased data support every year - increase the severity and possibly the frequency of droughts globally, as well as change their timing and location and extent and so forth. The specifics are all matters of probability. The prediction for Syria and its neighbors was for a high probability of significantly increased duration and severity of the occasional droughts this dry and already drought-prone region suffers. That is exactly what happened, and the economic and social disruptions seem to have been a primary initial cause of the current civil war. But it was a probability, that's all. One cannot "attribute" the Syrian drought to AGW except as a probability, and so we don't. On the other hand, choosing that specific crisis or disaster as an example of something far more serious than anything one's "common sense" expects from AGW, as you in your ignorance did, pegs the irony meter. The people who discuss these things using information and research instead of "common sense" have been talking about the AGW contribution to the troubles in Syria and its neighbors for years now. It's a very poor (to understate) example of something more serious than what AGW can do. The odds are quite good that it is something AGW has already done, or at least contributed significantly to. It is definitely an example of the kinds of problems we should be ready for, from AGW - according to the standard predictions. And many of them are worse. So you think more water vapor in the air means more rain, and you think more rain means less drought. The first oversimplifies - "more" can mean "less frequent but much heavier", for example - the second is simply an error. No one is disagreeing with you about that, at least as it applies to temperate zone land life (your only visible concern). I'm not, the AGW alarmists are not, nobody is. Everybody knows that. All the AGW alarms and other bad consequences predicted from the CO2 boost include that fact. Analogy: the optimal air pressure in the lungs of a human being is about 1 atmosphere. So when a deep diver is surfacing, they are going from a non-optimal air pressure in their lungs (too high, requiring specialized gas mixtures etc) to an optimal one. So no problem, according to uninformed "common sense". And an increasing probability of debilitating injury or death with increasing rapidity of transition, according to research. Which way would you bet your civilization? You did not address the examples I handed you, or do any research into the matter. Instead, you repeated and elaborated your argument from ignorant incredulity - you don't know why the spread of bad animals and plants would likely outpace the spread of good ones, so it wouldn't, and anyone discussing one-sided examples of the problems we face from this consequence of AGW is dealing in propaganda. That is your notion of "common sense" - do no research, ignore conflicting information (you ignored the bad mosquito example, for example. Apparently you think there are just as many good mosquitoes down south as bad ones - Or was the implication completely lost on you?) That warmer air picks up and holds more water vapor is not in doubt. That higher temps and greater vapor pressure deficits and more severe droughts (and whatever higher rates of vegetation growth are brought by more rain and extra CO2) lead to wildfire trouble is not in doubt. And so forth. A reasonable doubt would be directed at the assumption these simple and straightforward consequences of boosting CO2 would somehow not happen. Nope. There aren't that many sources for your vocabulary and stances in this matter, and they are all liars.