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: 5793
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 (1-5) not displayed.
.
.
.
#6. To: James Deffenbach, Horse, abraxas (#3)
I've had some recent contacts in the CA food industry, and many crops that were normally grown in the state are started to get imported directly from Mexico. They pay laborers less down in Mexico than growers are obligated legally to pay them here, and I imagine there is less agricultural oversight to have to deal with too.
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
"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
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
I meant the water in Mexico. For decades, Mexico has complained that the US robbed them of the ability to farm after diverting the Colorado.
"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
bullshit
"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." bullshit Farmers were complying with all existing regs for crop irrigation (with no documented waste) when a federal judge decided to cut their allotments to save the buck-toothed delta smelt (or something) from "death by irrigation pump". It doesn't matter if blue whales get caught in nuke plant cooling water intakes though. Different regs for different industries.
bullshit Mono Lake? Salinas Valley? Sacramento Delta? Bakersfield, Taft? Any reason for running sprinklers in the daylight instead of night, potty mouth?
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
"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." Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
First off, I'm not a farmer, nor would my name indicate that I was. Second, you made claims you didn't support with facts. Still haven't. So don't try and come after me like I'm the one who is posting deficient.
"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." Just a quick point: farmfriend has consistently updated the water shortage issues in California based upon federal restriction guidelines, particularly in the central valley area which used to be the breadbasket of the world (now just a dustbowl with farming communities dying and where unemployment runs as high as 25%). She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save. BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts (as I do farmfriend's). Please keep doing so on 4um.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I don't believe we have an either/or choice where it's choosing production or saving species. All across the US the entire ecosystem has been trashed in little more than 100 years. When the Great Plains were first cultivated there was over 12-18 inches of topsoil just about everywhere. Then by the 1930's we had the "Dust Bowl," and today the norm for good soil there is about 4 inches. The silt has clearly washed down the Mississippi/Missouri river basin and dozens of miles into the Gulf - where now it gets mixed with oily goo. People back then just didn't care about the future, until big bad government decided to make them care. Not that the government choices thesmelves were always right, but at least it was movement into the right direction. So all this talk about the goodness of private enterprise and the badness of govenment control is really a big joke. Then take Colorado/Nevada/Arizona/Imperial Valley. The same type of waste and trashing of water resources. Added to this the violation of water treaties promising a certain amount of water to go into Mexico they can use for their own agriculture. The US has never delivered on those commitments to Mexico. Then some Americans complain when Mexican farm labor comes north to where the water is. Working west, the misuse of Sierra water for placer mining in the Gold Rush, then the construction of huge inefficient irrigation projects to move San Joaquin Delta water into parts of the Central Valley where lots of it evaporated, and some of the rest leached poisons into toxic cesspools like Kesterson. Even further west, over pumping of Salinas River Valley water causing salt water intrusion into the ground water table. Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions. Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. All these practices could have and should have been done more carefully and more with an eye to conserving for future generations. They weren't done that way because so-called free market forces were allowed to run rampant. And now we have the consequences of this systematic destruction of what was only 200 years ago was pristine agricultural land from sea to sea. Bottom line is the government is going to step in, and there are some people who are motivated to keeping and even improving what is left, and any people who don't like it are just going to have to get off the train and walk to where they're going. Because the train is not going to stop to please them. All the blather about eco-weenies, smelt-lovers, Gaia worshippers, leftists, property rights, Brave New World, government tyranny, etc. is not going to cut it because the "free market" forces have made a substantial hole in the system in little more than 100 years, and there are enough people wanting to see that hole start to get plugged that it will happen.
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets? I grew up in Redding. As any Californian who has ever picked up a fishing rod knows, the region around this small north state city supports some of the best angling in the state. Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoir are literally in our backyard. The Trinity River, home to fine steelhead fishing, is an hour’s drive to the west. The Upper Sacramento River, Trinity Lake, the small, alpine lakes of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, Lake Shastina, Lake Almanor, the Pit River, the McCloud River and Hat Creek are all nearby, and all afford spectacular trout fishing. But it is the Lower Sacramento River — the portion that begins just north of Redding, below Keswick Dam — that historically has been the biggest draw for sport anglers. For one thing, this section supports a lunker native rainbow trout fishery. Drift boaters come from around the West to float the 30-mile stretch between Redding and Red Bluff, hoping — and usually succeeding — to tie into some of our football-size ‘bows. More to the point, the “Lower Sac” has long been sacred water to salmon fishermen. In 2008 and 2009, California’s salmon season was closed entirely due to low numbers of fish. This year, we’re having a very limited season — salmon numbers have bumped up a little, but not enough to warrant any celebration. Not so long ago, however, hundreds of thousands of big, beautiful, fall-run chinook salmon ran up this river to spawn. There were plenty of fish to sustain the runs, with plenty left over to catch. Each year, the anglers would be there in the thousands to greet the homecoming salmon. I was one of that crowd, both as a fishermen and a professional guide. I’ve always loved fishing for salmon — but more than that, as a guide, the salmon put (so to speak) meat and potatoes on my table. The salmon fishery on the Lower Sac was a recreational fishery, but it wasn’t just about recreation: It was about jobs. And jobs are a deadly serious issue in the north state. High unemployment is a relatively recent development in the San Francisco Bay area and Southern California, but it has been a concern with us for decades. The recreational salmon industry was big business in this area. Further, it was reliable, sustainable business. As long as the fish got what they needed — mainly adequate downstream flows — they returned, giving us what we needed: income. A 1992 University of California at Davis study concluded that each salmon caught in the sport fishery was worth $900 to $1,200 to the local economy. So when I boated a client’s salmon, I wasn’t the only one getting paid. The motel owners, the restaurateurs, the waiters and cooks who worked in those restaurants, the gas station owners — everybody got a cut And that’s just direct expenditures from the clients. The guides who fish this river also put a lot of money into the local economy. I run a $50,000 jet boat. Local mechanics work on that boat. I buy my fuel and tackle locally — and when the salmon are running, believe me, I buy a lot of fuel and tackle. So we can’t just view our salmon as noble, attractive, hard-fighting fish that happen to be incredibly delicious — certainly, they’re all those things. But they’re also something more than all that: They’re revenue multipliers. They generate wealth. Each fish represents life for Redding and all the other towns along the river. When we had full salmon seasons, some full-time guides made $70,000 to $80,000 a year — very good money for this part of the state. Guiding supported my family, and helped support the community. But now, more than 90 percent of my guide business has vanished — gone with the salmon closures. And it’s not just a matter of losing my salmon trips. Guiding is synergistic — I booked many of my trout trips while salmon fishing. The clients would get so excited after hooking into a few big fall-run chinook that they’d want to come back and try for our monster trout. If you don’t have that ongoing face-to-face interaction with your clients, if you don’t constantly cultivate and follow up contacts, if you don’t get that word-of-mouth buzz going, you’re not going to make it as a fishing guide. A fishing closure is like a monkey wrench thrown into a jet engine — everything stops, and it can be impossible to get things going again. It took me 20 years to build up my client base. Even if we eventually go back to full salmon seasons, it’s going to take me a long time to get back to where I was. What am I doing today? Like everybody else in this area, whatever it takes to survive: construction, remodeling, anything. My income, obviously, has fallen dramatically. These are tough times on the river — both for the fish and the fishing industry. Somehow, this debate over water has become characterized as a matter of “fish versus jobs.” The argument is that we can have salmon or we can have farming in the Central Valley, but we can’t have both. I think this is ridiculous. We can have both a healthy salmon fishery and a vigorous agricultural sector — we just have to allocate the water fairly and rationally. We need to change the way water is delivered, we need more habitat restoration, and we need to emphasize crops and technologies that conserve water. We also need to adjust water deliveries to accommodate the basic biological requirements of the fish. Spawning salmon need cold water in the river to successfully reproduce, and the young fish need adequate flows to ensure their successful migration to the sea. These baseline conditions must be met if we want to save our salmon and the jobs they generate. Unlike human beings, salmon are unable to compromise or to adjust: they simply need what they need. And what they need isn’t all that much — we can conserve them without disrupting, or even adversely affecting, state agriculture. Recent agreements on the Klamath River and the San Joaquin River have resulted in true “win-win” situations that accommodate both fisheries and farmers. We can do the same for the Sacramento River and the Delta. For my business, the bottom line is this: If we take care of the salmon, they’ll take care of us. Let’s quit all this bickering and get on with it. Mark Mlcoch is president of the Northern California Guides Association. The fact is, California *IS* running out of water. And the reason is because of the HUGE population increases over the last 60 years, drying up the once MEGA-ECONOMY into one in deadthroes and destined into national shock. Remember the once popular polititical quote by MSM pundits... "where California goes, so does the rest of the nation"????/ 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.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Big excesses come both from agribusinesses going for good current returns and willing to cut corners and try to keep the costs down, and also from individuals who frequently want to keep the land in the family for a few generations. There have been people on both sides who for years weren't held back by the govenment from whatever methods they chose. Free market choices have been made already and they have us where we are now. And where we are now is not where we want to continue being. One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours. During the mid 1970's Cesar Chavez's union went to court and sued to get the tools banned. Eventually they were banned - by evil govenment - and afterwards during the 1980's it was discovered that the now mandated long-handled hoes actually increased production 5% - 15%. So under free market and free enterprise, ruthless idiots running farms were free to make business decisions harming both their workers and themselves. And when the government lefties put a stop to this abhorrent practice, things got better for everyone. Same reasoning goes to water. The water table has been depleted by people thinking only for themselves. Intervention is needed to make them think for eveybody. It's not their own land or their own water. At best they are custodians only for the rest of the society.
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 warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull Warming. You're such a card Buckie. And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
"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
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
"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." I completely agree. This was left out of AGAviator's post however. The problem I have with the whole Salmon issue is you never get the whole story. You are never told about how the PDO being in a warm phase effected salmon returns. You are never told about foreign fishing vessels over fishing salmon off our coast. No you have NGO's using the court system to shut down logging and agriculture in our country. Why? Not to save the fish but to shut down competition for their over seas logging and agricultural interests. (same thing is happening the oil industry btw) So in this case AGAviator's precious government regulation is actually hurting the environment by forcing the logging and agriculture into countries that are not as environmentally conscious as the US. Logging wasn't hurting the fish and it wasn't hurting the spotted owl either. That was caused by encroachment of the eastern barred owl. It was able to expand its territory because there are more trees across the US than there used to be.
"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." Buck has actually done a lot to fight illegal immigration including manning the border with the MM. I remember when I first started posting on LP again it was right in the midst of all the controversy about the MCDC finances. I came down on the side of wanting to know where the money went. Of course a few immediately jumped on me as being in support of open borders. Buck and a couple of others that were on the MCDC side of the argument put a stop to it. They had known me for too many years across several forums and said so.
"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." Big excesses come both from agribusinesses going for good current returns and willing to cut corners and try to keep the costs down, and also from individuals who frequently want to keep the land in the family for a few generations. There have been people on both sides who for years weren't held back by the govenment from whatever methods they chose. Free market choices have been made already and they have us where we are now. And where we are now is not where we want to continue being. One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours. During the mid 1970's Cesar Chavez's union went to court and sued to get the tools banned. Eventually they were banned - by evil govenment - and afterwards during the 1980's it was discovered that the now mandated long-handled hoes actually increased production 5% - 15%. So under free market and free enterprise, ruthless idiots running farms were free to make business decisions harming both their workers and themselves. And when the government lefties put a stop to this abhorrent practice, things got better for everyone. Same reasoning goes to water. The water table has been depleted by people thinking only for themselves. Intervention is needed to make them think for eveybody. It's not their own land or their own water. At best they are custodians only for the rest of the society. I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points. Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Through subsidies, not available or insufficient for small farms, tax laws which favor large operations, and regulatory overkill which creates a fixed overhead hard for the small farmer to cover and comply with, but much easier for a large operation since it is, as a percentage, a much smaller bite for the large operation. The small farm and responsible stewardship of the land has been killed by government. Another big difference is that corporations don't pay inheritence tax. Many small farms, if they have not sold out to pay the tax, are in their third and fourth generations of re-mortgaging the farm to pay the inheritence tax - which is NOT paid by corporations. Are there unethical or shortsighted small farmers? Sure, but they don't last long because the business model is not sustainable. Organic farming is not a creation of the government. Ag bureaus have been dragged kicking screaming into organic agriculture. They actually fought it in its inception all the way up until no more that 15 years ago. Even then they called it a "niche" market. Now as a result of the free market you deride it is rapidly becoming much more than a niche market as knowledgeable people are voting with their dollars and that vote is o-r-g-a-n-i-c. The first, and still best, organic certification organizations have all been private. A creation of that free market you disparage. And because of the higher return more farmers were beginning to make the switch until the favored mega-combines got fearful of the changing tide and prevailed upon the USDA to create their phony pseudo-organic label. The USDA has had, as their primary focus, for at least the last 70 years, been petrochemical based narrow range strip mine farming, and like all government agenicies they favor the largest players and respond to their pressure. State Extensions, although some were already changing, then followed the USDA into organic. If the USDA had, had their way organic would have been mariginalized and relegated to "a bunch of hippies". The nice thing about organic farming is that it builds soil fertility over time not depletes it as strip mine farming does. However, government is doing everything they can to kill the small farmer. All preferences and resources are aimed at and directed to the large corporate agri-combines such as ADM, Monsatan, and Tyson. Far from being the panacea you assume government has often been one of the biggest obstacles to sound management. People do learn, and family farmers live on and wish to preserve and pass down the farm to the next generation. You act as though that is a bad thing. Far from your assumptions family farmers are much more responsible than you would like to give them credit for. Mistakes in the past have been more a matter of ignorance not intent. As knowledge has improved land stewardship has improved. Trying to lump them in with the corporate agri-pirates and their buddies in big government is simply ignorant and tells me that you have spent no significant time studying the issues. I could go on into water allocation, but again it is largely the same thing - big growers with big influence with government get what they want and to hell with everyone else - but it is government dictat that provides the cover and authority for them to get away with it.
"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
Buck has actually done a lot to fight illegal immigration including manning the border with the MM. I remember when I first started posting on LP again it was right in the midst of all the controversy about the MCDC finances. I came down on the side of wanting to know where the money went. Of course a few immediately jumped on me as being in support of open borders. Buck and a couple of others that were on the MCDC side of the argument put a stop to it. They had known me for too many years across several forums and said so. I am aware of Buck being on the right side of the issue - and a good friend of someone I liked - the late Jackalope Breeder. I wasn't chiding him on that point - just underscoring where the massive population growth came from.
"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
Ok, I can see that. My apologies for making erroneous assumptions. I'm worked up over other issues tonight and I didn't mean to take it out on you.
"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." Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Oh you worded it soooooo much better than I. Totally agree. Of course the government regulations have all been pushed by NGO lawsuits. What they did to logging and agriculture they are now doing to energy markets.
"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." No problem I was not offended and did not take it that way - just keeping the record straight. If I stick a needle in buck I'll own up to it. ;-)
"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
PDO? Definition por favor.
"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
PDO = Pacific decadal oscillation The Pacific (inter-)decadal oscillation was named by Steven R. Hare, who noticed it while studying salmon production patterns results in 1997.[1] The mechanism by which the pattern lasts over several years has not been identified; one suggestion is that a thin layer of warm water during summer may shield deeper cold waters. A PDO signal has been reconstructed to 1661 through tree-ring chronologies in the Baja California area.[2] The prevailing hypothesis is that the PDO is caused by a "reddening" of ENSO combined with stochastic atmospheric forcing.[3] The interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO or ID) display similar sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-level pressure (SLP) patterns, with a cycle of 15–30 years, but affects both the north and south Pacific. In the tropical Pacific, maximum SST anomalies are found away from the equator. This is quite different from the quasi-decadal oscillation (QDO) with a period of 8-to-12 years and maximum SST anomalies straddling the equator, thus resembling the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). "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." Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Oh you worded it soooooo much better than I. Totally agree. Of course the government regulations have all been pushed by NGO lawsuits. What they did to logging and agriculture they are now doing to energy markets. Thanks. What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
"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
Thank you. That is something I have been interested in but was too ignorant to find the right data to get started understanding it.
"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
The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell.
"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." I can point you to a couple of places if you are interested.
"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." Please.
"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
The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. Exactly. Follow the money. "He who pays the piper names the tune."
"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
Well there is the climate forum I'm on with all the scientists. I can let you in. Then there is the Solar Cycle 24 forum. It has a global warming section. Sunsetthommy has a good forum too but I'll have to look up the URL for that one. Beyond forums you have have Watts up with that put out by Anthony Watts. It is about the best on the skeptics side. You also have Climate Audit Steve McIntyre's site. Of course he is the one that took down the infamous hockey stick.
"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." Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's. American farmers were free to do whatever they felt like for years. And they did and much of the American ag environment was trashed. Among other things they were free to sell their land to the agribusinesses you find more convenient to blame. Amerian farmers were even free to require their workers to use back- injuring tools that were later found to be less productive than ones that don't cause injuries. The problem with your pipe dreams about free market and environment is whenever you come up against a fact that doesen't dovetail into your concepts, you simply deny it is part of free market or blame business and government for its existence. And enviro treehuggers can see that clearly and that is why they will continue moving towards changes. I do believe that the power of agribusinesses to lobby should be decreased especially if money is used.
I'm not posting my resume here, but suffice to say I have held one key management consulting job in a food company doing $200 million with over 100 grower contracts, and other consulting gigs in food-connected companies doing $25 million to $100. Which individual farmers willingly sign contracts with. I know enough to have a good overview of what's happening even though ag is not my principal profession. You left out stupidity and greed. At the time short-handled hoes were in use, they were mandated by the great majority of individual farmers and not just a few. The farmers fought tooth and nail to keep courts from making them illegal, and they were dead wrong both from moral and also productive grounds. American individual farmers also kept pushing the bracero program of Mexicans coming into the US, so as to weaken the organizing of Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers, which wanted living wages for legal Americans of Mexican descent, and wanted changes of using very toxic even carcinogenic substances applied to fruits and vegetables. Last but not least, any favorable reference to Jackalope Breeder is a pretty serious disqualifier about knowledge of what is going on in the ag field. The e. coli infections of spinach were always caused by feral animals and destruction of fencing, and never by any people who are required to use portable sanitation with its own water supply that gets pulled right behind them as they work the fields. And who made the requirements for field sanitation? Why, who else, the evil government. When requirements for porta- potties came out, growers placed media ads ridiculing the concept by showing a burro lugging a single seat porta potty. That's where "free enterprise" stood on the concept of field sanitation. The constant vitriol against Mexicans/Hispanics as being responsible for anything about e. coli was white trash speak from Day One. I spent months debunking one looney after another claiming that Hispanics and not natural causes were to blame. Don't know if I ever got through to anyone, but the problem has been fixed and once again it was government and not private industry that played a major role in the solution. Just some examples of how poor the judgment of individual farmers or groups of them can be, for years.
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.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Again you conflate observations of events and draw conclusions unsupported by your examples. From the point of view of logic and sound reasoning they have little support or support is completely absent. They are assumptions which you assume to be true, conclusions, but for which there is nothing validating to prove their truth. Pardon me if I get a bit clinical here as this, while not intended to be insulting, could get a bit brutal. Again, this is NOT intended as a personal attack, but I also will not abide sloppy reasoning - you are an intelligent person, who means well, but that does not mean that your reasoning is sound. That itself is a logic error - assuming that because someone is a good person that therefore their reasoning is correct or sound. 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. This can be easily observed by visiting any viable family farm - you will find animals well tended, fields watered and fertilized, and crops gathered as efficiently as possible. 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. More likely, and for which your argument provides indirect support, is that they thought, erroneously as it turns out, that it was the best method to use to hoe the fields. People do reach erroneous conclusions and become set in their ways i.e., they do not always react logically and rationally. That applies equally to farm workers - who have had a culture eschewing education and enter multiple generations of doing the same menial work for the same low wages. In other words it is an assumption and a prejudice unfounded and unsupported. Take further your example of the "Dust Bowl". You assume, in prejudice, that the dust bowl's sole cause was greedy farmers without ever supporting it factually or demonstrating a mechanism by which these foul cretins intentionally destroyed their homes, their livelihood, and their families. Let's examine that from a factual perspective. Where did the dust bowl occur? In Plains States largely along the Mississippi drainage. So, what is the Mississipi river drainage and what does it have to do with soil viability and farming? Where did all that rich topsoil, as deep as 18 inches in some places, come from? Hands please? No, it did not just happen. It was a result of Mississippi river flooding. One of the indirect consequences of the Tennessee Valley Authority (a government project) in concert with the Army Corps of Engineers (a government agency) was to erect works and dams along the Mississippi Drainage to control flooding and produce electricity. One of the unintended consequences of "controlling" the Mississippi was to prevent the repleneshing of the riverine system with fresh layers of sediment i.e., topsoil. Along with that the region experienced a decade or so of abnormally low rainfall. And so the two had a predictable, in hindsight, outcome. No new topsoil depositation meant that the type of farming which was prevalent, and until that time successful, combined with extended drought resulted in the rich soil drying out, turning to dust, and blowing away. While today we do know ways of mitigating that you assume from a viewpoint of knowledge gained after the fact that automatically it was the result greedy farmers despoiling the land and foul free market of free individuals pursuing rational self interest that caused the drought and the unintended consequences of the TVA (which is erroneously sold in history texts as a panacea and as an example of the wisdom of government control of natural resouces - balderash, it is a thick layer of pro-government bullshit written by people whose closest contact with a real farm is a Sunday drive after having been primed with disinformation written by ignorant journalists with a political agenda) had nothing to do with it. Since I am not going to write a full history text to correct all of your misconceptions just one other point on the Plains region. (And much of this applies almost equally to the Imperial Valley - which was formerly arid land and made to blossom by the industry of farmers through tapping into the aquifer to provide the needed water to support the crops). One of the problems farmers are now running into there now is the depletion of the Oglalla Aquifer which was tapped into heavily beginning in the 1930's WITH THE BLESSING AND AID OF GOVERNMENT without regard to the long term affects of depleting the aquifer. In fact as a result of lack of knowledge it was not even, until the 1970's (if I recall correctly) that such depletion was even a problem. So, again you attribute base motives to people without knowledge of the true circumstances. It is farmers now leading the way by switching to low water varieties, which actually is more profitable but produces a lower yield per acre, which do not require heavy irrigation from the rapidly depleting aquifer. 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. I could easily spend another several hours relieving you of your lack of knowledge, but I learned all of this largely on my own and the information is freely 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 supported by wealthy foundations operating on a political agenda opposed to individual liberty.
"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
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 | |
#7. To: AGAviator (#6)
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
#9. To: AGAviator (#8)
#10. To: AGAviator, abraxas (#8)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#11. To: farmfriend, AGAviator (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
potty mouth?
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
#15. To: AGAviator (#14)
Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#16. To: AGAviator, farmfriend (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save.
#18. To: AGAviator (#17)
Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions.
Mark Mlcoch: No water, no fish, no jobs
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
(Edited)
Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets?
#20. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#18)
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.
"... with an increasing average temperature ..."
#21. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#17)
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#22. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#18)
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.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#23. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#24. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, buckarooey, Buckmonster Fullofit, buckeroo (#19)
Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets?
#25. To: farmfriend (#23)
And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
#26. To: Original_Intent (#25)
I am aware of Buck being on the right side of the issue - and a good friend of someone I liked - the late Jackalope Breeder. I wasn't chiding him on that point - just underscoring where the massive population growth came from.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#27. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, buckeroo (#24)
I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#28. To: farmfriend (#26)
Ok, I can see that. My apologies for making erroneous assumptions. I'm worked up over other issues tonight and I didn't mean to take it out on you.
#29. To: farmfriend (#22)
You are never told about how the PDO being in a warm phase
#30. To: Original_Intent (#29)
PDO? Definition por favor.
The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#31. To: farmfriend (#27)
I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points.
#32. To: farmfriend (#30)
#33. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, buckeroo (#31)
What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#34. To: Original_Intent (#32)
That is something I have been interested in but was too ignorant to find the right data to get started understanding it.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
I can point you to a couple of places if you are interested.
#36. To: farmfriend (#33)
What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
#37. To: Original_Intent (#35)
Please.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#38. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#21)
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#24)
(Edited)
Trying to lump them in with the corporate agri-pirates and their buddies in big government is simply ignorant and tells me that you have spent no significant time studying the issues.
Mistakes in the past have been more a matter of ignorance not intent.
#40. To: AGAviator (#19)
One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours.
#41. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Lod, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#38)
Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
#42. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
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
.
.
.
Comments (46 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest