See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 2826
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-41) not displayed.
.
.
.
#42. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
In response to my general comment, Mr. O_I contends: According to NOAA: So, for the last past century the Earth has been generally experiencing increasing temperatures, year after year. Now, the rate of increase of change for temperature increase has flattened somewhat over the past few years, the upward trend is climbing. Single point phenomena doesn't discount the general phenomena just because you have found an almost manic shangri-la to cling to concerning over-all temperature changes. The temperature changes in California are diverse, so let's start off with a recent picture for your viewing pleasure to set the facts: Those changes are in just one year. Now, lets talk about the general changes: | NAVIGATE HOME | | The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life. -- buckeroo
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not.
Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull [sic] warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull [sic] Warming. You're such a card Buckie.
Published November 2004 / (updated) October 2005 All Rights Reserved 
California Weather Predictions Show Higher Rainfall Rates, Winter 2004 and 2005 is nothing more than a wet memory for many residents of southern California. Early mountain snowstorms (before Halloween) shattered historical records for celebratory skiers. By the end of its rain season (30 June) Los Angeles recorded 37 and one-quarter inches of rain for the previous 12 months. This amount of rain is more alike New York City's annual average of 44 inches of rain or Dallas' 38 inches, which are typically spread out over a 12 month period. Los Angeles received the bulk of its rain in October 2004, and January, and February 2005. Such a pattern is more common for India during its three-month Monsoon. Eight confirmed tornadoes in the Los Angeles basin also made for an active severe weather period. * Monthly updates to San Juan Capistrano, CA weather may be of interest to readers. In Orange County mountains the rainfall storm total during a four-day period of 7-10 January hit 20 inches, or closer to what Saddleback Mountain range typically records in 12 months. Almost anything goes in California; however, long-range forecast models did predict a wet-winter for the Southwestern United States and indicates that such a year could be more common in decades ahead. The science of long-range weather prediction is an educated guess, but computer models provide information to use for practical purposes and planning rather than alarming residents. In California, the largest economy in the United States, healthy rainfall and snow pack is the greatest challenge for the state as water demand exceeds what nature typically provides. Figure 1 combines model data for rainfall projection increases in California for the next 100 years. Figure 2 combines model data for expected increases in temperatures in California for the next 100 years. Trend Models For the period 2010-2080, the future of water --indeed the state's most valuable resource-- is no sure bet. Canada's department of science for climate change models conflict with worst case drought predictions from the Union of Concerned Scientist, a California-based climate study organization. Canada actually offers California a big break in the long-range forecast, predicting rainfall totals of 150 percent above what has become "average" by year 2080. California governmental agencies are preparing for the drought model. All long-range models conclude that California's temperatures will warm on the average of 3 to 6 degrees. Meaning, a current average temperature of 50 degrees (high and low temperatures averaged together) would warm to between 53 and 56 degrees. That in and of itself means little without folding out data into average high and low temperature plan at the regional level. For a city with an average high and low of 60 and 40, the temperature could change to 76 and 36 in a drier climate or 66 and 46 in a moist environment. Statewide, the greatest increase in temperatures is expected during wintertime months. For sunshine lovers, the prediction of yearlong warm weather is good news -- for skiers however, the snow season across the Golden State maybe left to old photographs and memories. Warmer winters mean less snow, more rainfall, thus more rapid and dirty runoff, and little runoff in dry months. To compare extreme models, we've calculated both possibilities using California's climate study group data, and Canada's research models along with some microclimate data known about California. For the graphics in this story, we've used Canada's data for rainfall estimates and both models for temperature. California has numerous microclimates. Depending upon inland temperatures and cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures, the future of California's onshore flow hangs in the balance. Many of California's microclimates are in place due to existing climate trends and the availability or absence of the onshore flow. As these trends change, the microclimates will evolve accordingly. They could simply disappear. The Pacific Ocean currents are dependent upon salinity levels and temperature, as well as northern latitudinal ice melt. An increase in salinity levels and warmer water temperatures could lead to permanent waning of the onshore flow, warming coastline temperatures, and a increasing the monsoon influence in southern California during summer months. When summertime monsoon flows infiltrate the desert regions, coastal areas from San Diego to Malibu experience less onshore flow and warmer temperatures due to cooler and cloudy weather in the desert regions. After two significant tropical waves in summer 2003 brought heavy July rains to the Sacramento Valley, the infamous onshore flow into the Bay Area subsided for the duration of this event as well. It is conceivable that even northern California summers may experience an increase of tropical weather, thus warming the coastline during these spells. What often dissipates tropical waves at the present time is cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures. As the Pacific water warms however, tropical waves are more likely to hold together and in fact maybe enhanced much in the way they are along the Eastern seaboard with warmer ocean temperatures. Drought? On the other hand, the monsoon flow over Mexico, Arizona, and desert regions of California has its own set of dependencies. Both Arizona and New Mexico are in a cycle of less than robust monsoonal seasons, with only that of 2005 registering close to normal after a decade of weak monsoons. Should climate change cause the opposite effect, and decrease moisture influence from the tropics, the desert southwest's climate would be similar to that of the Persian Gulf and drop average rainfall totals to half of what they are today. Natural desert plant life would vanish and underground wells would run dry. The coastline of California's weather would be more alike that of Baja Mexico's dry, cool winters and long, hot dry summers. Should California experience the worst case drought scenario, technology and resources could make ocean water ready for consumption at the current cost of inland water. Predictions for the Midwestern United States actually fair much worse that California at present time, and conclude that between years 2050-2100, the eastern front range of the Rocky Mountains may become the nation's largest desert region without means to secure consumable water. If the worst case drought predictions prove correct for California --rainfall in Los Angeles (current 30-year average is 16 inches) will fall to an annual average of 12 inches by year 2050 and 9 inches by 2100-- or more like Las Vegas is today. San Francisco's average annual rainfall (currently 21 inches) would drop to 17 inches in 2050 and 13 inches in 2100. San Diego would drop from 11 inches to 7 inches. Warmer In viewing the past 30 years of average temperatures across California and comparing them to the previous block of 30 year cycles going back 90 years, there is no doubt that average temperatures have increased especially during winter months. Predicting future temperatures is easier for Los Angeles and San Diego as they would more reflect those current temperatures along the Baja Mexico Peninsula. San Francisco's temperatures are more dependent upon the tug of air and water currents in the Pacific. But if the eastern Pacific waters warm as some models indicate, water temperatures of 70 degrees are possible in summertime along Northern California and 80 degrees in Southern California -- the onshore flow would diminish a great deal, and could result in coastal city temperature increases of as much as 15 degrees from today's averages. Warmer coastal cities like Santa Cruz would jump from 73 to 83, Long Beach from 81 to 90, and Del Mar from 78 to 87. Warmer ocean temperatures along California are also dependent upon a diminished NW-wind flow. The average July-August high temperatures in Los Angeles could rise from 85 degrees today to 92 degrees in 2100, while San Francisco's average summertime high temperatures could rise from 71 to 77. San Diego could see a rise from 78 degrees to 86 degrees. Western-facing beach cities, Monterey, Oxnard, Santa Monica and Oceanside will warm as well, although not as much as those coastal cities facing southern exposures. Wet If Canada's predictions are correct for rainfall, Los Angeles could see an average annual rainfall total of 23 inches, San Francisco would rise to 32 inches and San Diego would rise to 18 inches in 2050. Due to Los Angeles' and San Diego's proximity to warmer Pacific Ocean waters and the tropical monsoon zone, some of this rainfall could arrive in the form of two or three tropical waves each summer, such a change would be drastic to the current climate in southern California, especially if waters off the coast begin to support hurricane activity, which would pose great threats to residential and commercial property. Northern California's increase in rainfall would primarily be due to more intense Pacific winter storms. For native plant life across all of California, Canada's prediction treats plant life very well. It is unknown whether or not the migration North of tropical waves would impact Mexico with widespread drought. Mexico is heavily dependent upon long periods of tropical rain showers in summertime for both residential consumption of water and for growing crops. Averages are, after all, "average," one year's extreme weather averages out over time. For the past 50 years in Los Angeles the rainfall range is 6 inches to 38 inches. Using the new model of average, a dry year in Los Angeles could be 11 inches and a wet year closer to 50 inches. Fifty inches of rainfall in southern California could prove catastrophic without precautionary measures in place. Contrarily, on the dry models, three decades of rainfall less that 10 inches would wipe out all native species of plant life found in the region today. Live oaks, pine trees, and hillside shrubs would die and expose soil to erosion. Additional and refined research could help long-range preparations for nation's most populous state. While there are no clear answers yet, preparation for climate change is a responsible action when time is on your side. Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---
Warmer Temperatures
Warming of the earth's surface creates more extreme weather events as the earth dissipates excess heat. As weather systems spawn and track East the influence upon California weather means:
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#43. To: buckeroo (#40) (Edited)
Certainly. Cesar Chavez Biographical Sketch For ten years, César’s family traveled as migrant farm workers in California looking for work harvesting crops in the fields. They moved from town to town in order to find work. Once they found work, they had to rent run-down shacks with no heating or water from the growers who owned the land. There were so many farm workers looking for work that the growers could treat them however they wanted. If the workers complained, the growers would fire them. The Chávez family worked long hours in the fields, from 3:00 am until sunset, and were paid so little they often did not have enough money to buy food.
Can you cite some evidence about this? I think that sounds strangely "slave/master" 200 year old like, as though to contain the visual observations of slaves to the ground
The first four figures in this piece are close to the ground demonstrating the early days when farmworkers had to stoop over and work with backbreaking short hoes. The short hoes that are depicted were eventually outlawed due to the efforts of the César Chávez and the UFW. The next five figures are completely upright with flags in their hands instead of workers tools, to symbolize the many marches workers made to assure the basic human rights this particular community had been denied. When seen from a distance the piece profoundly displays the plight of the farmworkers harsh existence and their eventual ascension to dignity and self-empowerment.
Before Cesar and the movement, we didn’t even have water or bathrooms in the fields. Now, wherever we go there is a truck with water following us.” — Jose Meza, Napa Valley farmworker
#44. To: Original_Intent (#41)
The Great Plains started with over 18 inches of topsoil before American farmers - not agribusinesses, just regular growers - got it down to less than 6 in under 100 years. That's what I term trashing. In their opinions, which can be wrong especially if they don't take the time and trouble to cooperate with scientific research. No, they were ignorant, partially motivated by greed, had some racial prejudice, and were in the end flat-out wrong. Just like their protesting requirements to have sanitation in the fields - another evil government mandate. I've already told you I've done several consulting projects for food industry businesses with direct grower contacts and contracts. You're the one in this instance spouting propaganda. Corporate farming didn't even catch on until after private individuals degraded the land and felt a need to get out.
For example you imply that farmers willfully "trashed the environment" a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by any logical, or provable, set of data. In fact one could gather and present a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary.
Farmers, following sound practice, seek to improve their holdings, its value, and their return on their work invested.
Take your earlier example of the short handled hoe. Do you think farmers required that of their workers because they wished them harm and wanted to see them all crippled with back pain? Not likely.
Available assuming you would rather know what you are talking about rather than robotically repeating cliches and propaganda implanted by environmental groups run by city dwellers.
#45. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#42)
Spam. Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend. Temperartures go up, temperatures go down. Climate is variable and cyclical. And as usual your climate model maps are curiously cut off and the scale contracted to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. The beginning of your graph is the end of a several century period known as "The Little Ice Age". What happens at the end of an ice age that lets us know it is over? Hands Please!? Correct! It warms up and that is how we know the ice age is over. If we look at a graph of a longer period of time the picture becomes clearer - note that the graph before and after the little ice age is very similar i.e., about the same temperature ranges we experienced throughout much of the 20th century. 
Note: I just love the way your graph cuts out the little ice age and the cooling period we are in now.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#46. To: Original_Intent (#45)
lol
Spam.
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#47. To: All (#45)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#48. To: Original_Intent (#45)
lol....what? You say that climate was actually a facter for a longer period than just the past 120 years? How could that be? eyes rolling I bet you would even go so far as to dare to suggest that the SUN has somthing to do with climate change. Al Gore and his band of "climatologists" don't consider the sun to be a relevant talking point. So, do your part and pretend that the big ol' ball of fire in the sky has NOTHING to do with it. It's that derb nubbed carbon dioxide.
Spam.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#49. To: abraxas (#48)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#50. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Yeah .... and you neglect to add the HUGH, burgeoning population growth in just past few decades. This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#51. To: Original_Intent (#49)
lol.......I liked that graph too. : ) Very, very low sun spot activity, a common sense change in the sun's output, couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the climate on the earth.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#52. To: buckeroo (#50)
Again an ASSertion absent any proof. We know now that the Glowbull Warming propagandists have been falsifying data, excluding data, and Scientists, which provide contradictory confirmation etc., ... Oh, and where's that Nobel Prize winning liar Al Bore these days?
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#53. To: abraxas (#51)
What? The major energy source of the Solar System? Go on now! The sun's output an influence? Who'd a thunk? Certainly not the Climate Research Unit.
Very, very low sun spot activity, a common sense change in the sun's output, couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the climate on the earth.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#54. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#52)
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena. Again an ASSertion absent any proof. So you want to ASSert that burning 19 million barrels of oil per day every day year in year out, while deforesting 214,000 acres per day - an area larger than New York City, every day year in year out - have nothing to do with climate change. Or the fact that the ice caps over the North Pole have shrunk so much that polar bears who live on them year round are drowning because they have to swim so far to find food they become exhausted. Just a coincidence with all other human activity, no? Slam Gore and Gaia all you want, most people aren't going to wait until the disasters caused by these factors are undeniable to every denying soul on the planet.
#55. To: AGAviator (#54)
A. We do have environmental problems. B. Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#56. To: Original_Intent (#55)
B. Antropogenic So let's review your statements with a few modifications, above. Do you run around rattling like this all day to yourself?
A. We do have environmental problems.
Glowbull Warming causes is not one of them. It Antropogenic causes is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming Antropogenic causes is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#57. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#55) (Edited)
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased thousands of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere. This increased pollutant load also interferes with radiation of heat into space, besides temperature increases coming from the burning fuel itself.
Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric
#58. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#57)
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans. The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased millions of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#59. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#57)
O_I understands all that. But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity) .... yet, he knows mankind has a direct impact on the world around us, too. He just believes that AlGore is the "Globull Warming Guru" and as a direct result those exaggerations prove that global warming phenomena doesn't exist. I maintain that it does exist, although I don't believe that anthropogenic causes are the only inputs, although, as I earlier pointed out ... it is interesting to me that global warming phenomena is coincident in time with the industrial revolution and an ever increasing population base while we see a shrinking natural resource base.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#60. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, Lod, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz (#41)
Oh what a mess that was. The claim was that they needed more water for a fish that does well in 1.5' in tule lake. The claim was that the water was too low despite it being at record level highs. Oddly enough, the guy (read government environmentalist) who set the water level was commodore of the yacht club and that was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats from the water. Also, the farmers fields are what fed the birds from the bird sanctuary which also had no water because of the shut off. So government regulation saved the water for the fish who didn't need it while damaging the pacific flyway.
Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#61. To: Original_Intent (#47)
Oh that's a keeper.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#62. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#59)
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity)
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#63. To: farmfriend (#60)
Oh what a mess that was. The claim was that they needed more water for a fish that does well in 1.5' in tule lake. The claim was that the water was too low despite it being at record level highs. Oddly enough, the guy (read government environmentalist) who set the water level was commodore of the yacht club and that was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats from the water. Also, the farmers fields are what fed the birds from the bird sanctuary which also had no water because of the shut off. So government regulation saved the water for the fish who didn't need it while damaging the pacific flyway. The real purpose of course was to drive the farmers out and into cities. Farmers are independent, they don't make good serfs or slaves - that is why Stalin murdered 11 million "Kulaks" - independent farmers - in the Ukraine.
Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#64. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, AGAviator, all (#62)
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative. That's about all he can do at this point. His "argument", such as it was, got stuffed and so all he has left is an attempt to misrepresent my position.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity)
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#65. To: farmfriend (#61)
Glad you liked it. ;-)
Oh that's a keeper.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#66. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#62)
So how does he think about the world's human population base doubling in another 20 years, if we don't have an infinite ecosystem? I will tell you, he thinks that is sustainable.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity) -- buckeroo
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative. -- farmfriend
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#67. To: Original_Intent (#41)
Congress protecting their own kin sounds like.
With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#68. To: buckeroo (#66)
You are making assumptions and accusations that are not correct. People don't want to have civilized conversations with you when you do that. You make your points and let OI make his own points. Let other judge him by what he says, not by what you claim he says.
So how does he think about the world's human population base doubling in another 20 years, if we don't have an infinite ecosystem? I will tell you, he thinks that is sustainable.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#69. To: Original_Intent (#63)
Agreed.
The real purpose of course was to drive the farmers out and into cities. Farmers are independent, they don't make good serfs or slaves - that is why Stalin murdered 11 million "Kulaks" - independent farmers - in the Ukraine.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#70. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#68)
Hey! I asked you a question because you jumped in arguing for him. I made a conclusion based upon his many earlier remarcks that allude to sustainability while the human population base is geometrically climbing. Why don't you let him argue his own stuff. In all cases, he was included.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#71. To: buckeroo (#70)
Not quite. But enough said. I'll resign from further comment.
Hey! I asked you a question because you jumped in arguing for him.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#72. To: Original_Intent (#64)
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one. So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#73. To: Original_Intent (#72)
Where is your answer to my post above?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
Right here.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#75. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
That will never happen. Agitprop?
Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#76. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#74)
So you evade my question by not answering. Do you feel better?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#77. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#58)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. While algae in the oceans does convert CO2 into organic food, some of that algae like the red is poison itself. And when algae levels get too high, either from over fishing or from allowing farming chemicals and by products to slosh into the waterways, the algae mass becomes toxic itself. Lower Ocean Oxygen Levels Predict Catastrophic Change A cascade failure is the progressive collapse of an integral system. Many scientists also call them negative feedback loops, in that unfortunate situations reinforce one another, precipitating eventual and sometimes complete failure. The agricultural practices relate to “factory farming,” in which farmers grow crops using more and more chemical fertilizers, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the first two ingredients (chemical symbols N and P) listed on any container or bag of fertilizer. The last is potassium, or K. But farmers aren’t the only culprits. Lawn enthusiasts add to the problem with their massive applications of fertilizer designed to maintain a species of plant that doesn’t provide either food or habitat, and is grown merely to add prestige. And groundskeepers at parks and large corporate headquarters are equally guilty. In fact, a whole generation needs to rethink its addiction to lawns. Whoever is guilty of applying the fertilizer, these megadoses are eventually washed off the fields and lawns and into waterways. From there, they migrate to the nearest large bodies of water, where they spark such tremendous and unnatural growth in aquatic plants that the result is eutrophication , or lack of oxygen in the water as bacteria act to reduce the sheer mass of dying organic matter. One of these aquatic growths is algae, or phytoplankton. Moderate algal growth can produce higher fish yields and actually benefit lakes and oceans, but over- stimulation leads to a whole host of problems whose integral relationship to one another threatens not only aquatic but human life. A classic example would be the Baltic Sea, where phytoplankton are raging out of control. The Baltic Sea is, as a result, home to seven out of ten of the world’s largest “dead zones,” aquatic areas where nothing survives. One of the other three is the Gulf of Mexico, where a 2008 dead zone the size of Massachusetts is expected to grow in future years thanks to the U.S. government’s biofuel mandate. Most of the crops for biofuel are grown along the Mississippi River, which drains directly into this dead zone. In the Baltic, as elsewhere, overfishing has exacerbated the problem. Fish feed on smaller aquatic organisms, which themselves feed on the algae. Take the fish out of the equation, and the balance is lost. It’s very much like removing the wolves that keep down the deer population in order to protect the sheep, and it doesn’t work in the ocean any better than it works on land. Absolutely false. Brazil's government personnel attempting to rein in slash burning and cutting of Amazonian rain forest are vastly outnumbered by would-be settlers and often try to stop the madness at the risk of their lives.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans.
There is a cascade failure going on in the world’s oceans that promises nothing but trouble in the future, and the problem stems in part from agricultural practices developed over the last half-decade aimed at growing more food on the same amount of land to feed rising populations.
The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
#78. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
the bigger question is; whose state will be polluted by the like of whitesands?
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#79. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#77)
Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv. It is fertilizer for plants. Currently CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. Mankind even does better at higher CO2 levels because we evolved when levels were higher. Without CO2 we have no forests, no agriculture, no life on this planet. CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#80. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#79) (Edited)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans? Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? How can you accuse anybody else of pseudo science after making a statement like you just did. Flies eat waste. This does not mean waste is food for people. Comprende?
#81. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#80)
Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet. Man evolved at higher CO2 levels and has better brain function at higher levels. Yes if the levels get too high it will kill you but then too much water will kill you as well.
Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans?
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#82. To: farmfriend (#81)
Lungs expel CO2 just like kidneys expel urine. People who are sick get pure oxygen to increase their chances of survival. Increasing oxygen capacity and its transport within the human body are the goals of: Athletic training, and health care, and spirituality - all at the same time. Your attempts to rationalize the amount of CO2 to promote some pet theory, and against these empirical facts, don't even rise to the level of junk science.
Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet.
.
.
.
Comments (83 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest