Aw, anuther one of them gol-darned book-larnin' edjimicated collidge boyz making yet anuther Chiken Little claim the sky is falling. Even if he's
the president of the World Wildlife Federation..... prolly just seekin' funding like the rest of the Commie Pinkos out there.
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
I have ideas that might save some of the fisheries
Spoiled Fish
This little essay is not about children but I must mention them to get your attention. Modern youngsters are thought not to be as healthy as those in
earlier generations. Some say children of the 30’s and 40s played in the mud, ate dirt and bugs by sheer accident and somehow that introduced microbes
into their systems in a way that made them less susceptible to modern allergens.
I won’t argue the point but I do want to give caution to my flyfishing pals. I have lots of them and I admire the fact that they release almost all
the fish they catch and do many other things to protect their habitat.
I watch them at play, I watch a ton of TV shows about fly fishing – the sport is growing like a wildfire, attracting people of all ages and all
persuasions. Professional anglers take many steps to protect each animal they hook; they wear gloves, they often don’t use nets lest a net do some
harm to the fish. They are careful about the capture and even more careful about the release. They employ special barbless hooks, work the fish to a
spot near the shore where they release it to make sure it is ready to return to the stream, river, ocean in good condition.
Back to the children. Might my heroes be codling the fish (pun intended)? Aren’t they training the fish, conditioning the animal to expect special
touchy feeling handling? Don’t you suppose the fish are passing their weaker genes into the (another pun) pool? Deep in the eat or be eaten biome
they inhabit is their mother, Mother Nature, a hard mother who waits along with bears, otter, eagles, weasels, turtles, snakes, barracuda, jacks, and
sharks who are looking for weakness, a millisecond’s hesitation as a signal for attack.
So the very caring sportsmen may not be doing the fish any favors when they practice such care, go to such great lengths to press the fish they catch
with as little stress as is possible. Perhaps stress and trauma will help them remain alert and energetic – I can see small, inexpensive mini tazers
(perhaps powered only by 2 AAA batteries). Maybe if the anglers leave the fish out of water for a few minutes (I was going to call that Air-boarding
but the word Boarding has very strong public recognition and bias), let them flop around on the boat deck, sand, kayak before they are roughly
released, it would make them stronger, faster, more motivated.
I think my idea could produce a win-win scenario since almost all flyguys seek action from their prey, want strong fighters and will go to the ends of
the earth to pull in bonefish, giant Trevally, peac-ck bass – they are not seeking whimpy fish. If they practice my new method they may lose some weak
ones but they will, over all, produce a new, virile brand of fish that are rough, tough and hard to bluff.
Many people are completely unaware of the fraud of geoengineering aerosol spraying of metals and salts in the sky for a variety for results, one of
which is to affect the weather. The weather is changing and is being controlled to drive drought, floods, toward changes in society. One reason is to
pass legislation to control land, water, agenda 21, to shift money and power. We already have cap and trade in California based on a fraud, to
increase carbon tax (climate taxes), including increased costs of water use through tiered tax, like oil, ion the backs of people n California as a
new paradigm.
Residents have no control of climate by their carbon output. This is a fraud put upon the people that requires attention and your interest to become
educated about the fraud of geoengineering that is harming our environment, our health and creating a huge cost burden to support a new trillion
dollar fraudulent economy.
Geoengineering is extremely harmful for the population and is an assault on the people.
Find out why they are spraying. Look up and wake up! Here is the internationally award winning documentary "Why in the world are they spraying?"
September 18, 2015
What Exxon Knew About Climate Change
By Bill McKibben
Wednesday morning, journalists at InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first
installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted
with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main
product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of
disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.
There’s a sense, of course, in which one already assumed that this was the case. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known about climate change
for decades now. But it turns out Exxon didn’t just “know” about climate change: it conducted some of the original research. In the nineteen-seventies
and eighties, the company employed top scientists who worked side by side with university researchers and the Department of Energy, even outfitting
one of the company’s tankers with special sensors and sending it on a cruise to gather CO2 readings over the ocean. By 1977, an Exxon senior scientist
named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was “general scientific agreement” that
what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made CO2; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the
company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures
two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day. “Present thinking,” Black wrote in summary, “holds
that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Those numbers were about right, too. It was precisely ten years later—after a decade in which Exxon scientists continued to do systematic climate
research that showed, as one internal report put it, that stopping “global warming would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion”—that NASA
scientist James Hansen took climate change to the broader public, telling a congressional hearing, in June of 1988, that the planet was already
warming. And how did Exxon respond? By saying that its own independent research supported Hansen’s findings? By changing the company’s focus to
renewable technology?
That didn’t happen. Exxon responded, instead, by helping to set up or fund extreme climate-denial campaigns. (In a blog post responding to the I.C.N.
report, the company said that the documents were “cherry-picked” to “distort our history of pioneering climate science research” and efforts to reduce
emissions.) The company worked with veterans of the tobacco industry to try and infuse the climate debate with doubt. Lee Raymond, who became the
Exxon C.E.O. in 1993—and was a senior executive throughout the decade that Exxon had studied climate science—gave a key speech to a group of Chinese
leaders and oil industry executives in 1997, on the eve of treaty negotiations in Kyoto. He told them that the globe was cooling, and that government
action to limit carbon emissions “defies common sense.” In recent years, it’s gotten so hot (InsideClimate’s exposé coincided with the release of data
showing that this past summer was the United States’ hottest in recorded history) that there’s no use denying it any more; Raymond’s successor, Rex
Tillerson, has grudgingly accepted climate change as real, but has referred to it as an “engineering problem.” In May, at a shareholders’ meeting, he
mocked renewable energy, and said that “mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity,” which would stand it in good stead in the case of
“inclement weather” that “may or may not be induced by climate change.”
The influence of the oil industry is essentially undiminished, even now. The Obama Administration may have stood up to Big Coal, but the richer Big
Oil got permission this summer to drill in the Arctic; Washington may soon grant the rights for offshore drilling along the Atlantic seaboard, and end
a longstanding ban on oil exports. All these measures help drive the flow of carbon into the atmosphere—the flow of carbon that Exxon knew almost
forty years ago would likely be disastrous.
We’ve gotten so inured to this kind of corporate power that the report in InsideClimate News received relatively little coverage. The big news of the
day on social media came from Irving, Texas, where the police handcuffed a young Muslim boy for taking his homemade alarm clock to school; all day
people tweeted #IStandWithAhmed, and rightly so. It’s wondrous to see the power of an Internet-enabled world shining the light on particular (and in
this case telling) injustice; there’s a principal and a police chief in Irving that will likely think differently next time. But we badly need the
same kind of focus on the long-lasting, underlying abuses of corporate might. As it happens, Exxon is based in Irving, Texas too.W
Many people are completely unaware of the fraud of geoengineering aerosol spraying of metals and salts in the sky for a variety for results, one of
which is to affect the weather. The weather is changing and is being controlled to drive drought, floods, toward changes in society. One reason is to
pass legislation to control land, water, agenda 21, to shift money and power. We already have cap and trade in California based on a fraud, to
increase carbon tax (climate taxes), including increased costs of water use through tiered tax, like oil, ion the backs of people n California as a
new paradigm.
Residents have no control of climate by their carbon output. This is a fraud put upon the people that requires attention and your interest to become
educated about the fraud of geoengineering that is harming our environment, our health and creating a huge cost burden to support a new trillion
dollar fraudulent economy.
Geoengineering is extremely harmful for the population and is an assault on the people.
Find out why they are spraying. Look up and wake up! Here is the internationally award winning documentary "Why in the world are they spraying?"
Good lord, and must be a world wide "fraud" since drought, flood, and climate change are Earth wide issues Maybe collusion between the various
mafias in the world with the Mexican cartels thrown in for good measure
"He was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2013.[8] Foreign Policy magazine named him to its inaugural list[9] of the 100 most important global
thinkers in 2009 and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.[10] In 2010, the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's
leading environmentalist" [11] and Time magazine book reviewer Bryan Walsh described him as "the world's best green journalist".[12]"
"He was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2013.[8] Foreign Policy magazine named him to its inaugural list[9] of the 100 most important global
thinkers in 2009 and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.[10] In 2010, the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's
leading environmentalist" [11] and Time magazine book reviewer Bryan Walsh described him as "the world's best green journalist".[12]"
With the formation of the EPA in 1970 ... "things" started to get "counted" ... including inert ingredients ... along with "proprietary
claims" on disclosure for registration ... not to mention the sampling and/or monitoring of: soil, air and water ...
Anyone rememberer Acid Rain and Rivers catching fire ... and those things called Super Fund Sites that started popping up .. Ya know things that
business's left behind called "liabilities"
Like the one in Butte MT ... Or how about the Gulf of Mexico after BP's "spill" .... et al
The real topper came in 1986 with Bophal followed by CIBA GIGY'S release into the Danube ... things really started to tighten up on: production,
transportation, storage, and/or handling of "hazardous materials" in the United States and a few other places
LA County moved heavy manufacturing/hazardous materials out to the "Inland Empire" in the eighties and a thing called a RMPP was required on any
business which would be "handling" hazardous materials ... based on a number of factors ... prior to build out and/or operation
We have made progress in those areas ... however, using chemicals to live better appears to be a double edged sword at this time .... and solutions
just become more expensive with issues in many cases .. MTB, new class of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides et al ... not to mention the shear
number of humans on the planet
Glad we are looking for a new planet ... this one's future for humans is questionable in the long term, at this time
This is not new science ... rather new technology which affords science a better means to observer and document findings quicker, more accurately and
on a sampling scales which boggles one's mind ... or at least mine
Not hopping for the worst .... Just trying to make a few more years watching the "show" ...
What is the purpose of our existence on Earth? What makes life meaningful? For Pope Francis, who is in New York for two days, the purpose of life is
to live in God’s “fullness” and in the “fullness” of creation. It is to contemplate “the joyful mystery” of “the world” with “gladness and praise.”
“The Creator does not abandon us. He never forsakes his living plan or repents of having created us,” he writes in his encyclical “Laudato Si’,” or
“Care for Our Common Home,” which was published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in July, and echoed yesterday and today in his
addresses to Congress and the U.N. It is good to be told that we have not been forsaken, but why, we must wonder, does the Pope reassure us? Francis,
the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, addresses his encyclical not only to the faithful but to every living person on the planet. It contains a moral
message that he delivers with great urgency: the Earth—his God’s creation—has been exhausted and depleted. The animals are dying. Global temperatures
are rising. And the poor will suffer most. What Francis outlines in his letter is the prelude to a cataclysm. And what he calls for is a “global
ecological conversion.”
But haven’t we heard this same message before, and with a Technicolor clarity in Dolby? “Those were the years after the ice caps had melted because of
the greenhouse gases,” a matter-of-fact narrator explains at the beginning of the Steven Spielberg movie “A.I.,” which was released in the summer of
2001. “Millions of people were displaced; climate became chaotic. Hundreds of millions of people starved in poorer countries. Elsewhere, a high degree
of prosperity survived when most governments in the developed world introduced legal sanctions to strictly license pregnancies, which was why robots …
were so essential an economic link in the chain mail of society.” The action of the movie opens in suburban New Jersey, where a couple with a
critically ill son weighs the pros and cons of adopting a prototype little-boy robot. New York is underwater, yet the characters behave just as they
would in any other age—jockeying for position at work, having fights and making up, and throwing parties by the pool. They do not seem that bothered
by what has happened to the Earth, just as we seem not that bothered now, despite the fact that what we are doing is, according to the World Health
Organization, expected to kill millions of people in our lifetimes.
But that is Spielberg, you might say. And just a movie vaguely based on fact. Yet you don’t have to turn to a Hollywood liberal to find an antecedent
to the Pope’s message. Take your pick of ideologies, and you will see that we are all in surprising agreement. In a scenario report prepared by the
Pentagon for President George W. Bush, in 2003, the authors warn, “With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and
economically poor regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a severe risk to political, economic, and social stability. In less
prosperous regions, where countries lack the resources and capabilities required to adapt quickly to more severe conditions, the problem is very
likely to be exacerbated.” The authors describe a scenario of mass emigration much like what we’re seeing now in Europe. They speculate that the U.S.
could become a fortress nation, with the Department of Defense managing the border, and that, to simplify border controls and the sharing of natural
and military resources, “the United States and Canada may become one” (a truly nightmarish scenario for those, like Senators Jim Inhofe and Ted Cruz,
who are allergic even to the thought of the U.N.).
The oil giant Shell took up the speculation baton, in 2008, with its “Blueprint” and “Scramble” climate-change scenarios. In “Scramble,” which, as its
name suggests, is the more chaotic of the two, “international discussion on climate change becomes bogged down in an ideological ‘dialogue of the
deaf,’ ” allowing “emissions of atmospheric CO2 to grow relentlessly.” In 2009, ABC News aired a two-hour special on the “worst-case” future, called
“Earth 2100: The Final Century of Civilization?” At the conclusion, a giant sea wall in New York fails, inundating the city; the U.S. government
collapses; and a fictional character, Lucy, narrowly escapes on foot to what had recently been the Canadian border. The intellectual left, too, admits
what is coming, yet does little about it. In a cynical piece for The Nation, Katha Pollitt asserts that, “by the time the collective damage is done,
it will be too late to undo it,” after confessing that she avoids reading news about the climate because it makes her sad.
The fact is that we know that we are causing mass destruction, but we behave as if we do not know, as if it’s someone else who does. Perhaps it is
simply too much to admit, and so we act as if the message is surprising. “Advocates of policies to combat climate change have said they hoped Francis
could lend a ‘moral dimension’ to the debate,” an article in the Times says—as if the moral dimension hasn’t been widely apparent for well over a
decade. Pundits like David Brooks minimize the overwhelming scale of what we’re doing to the environment by including it on lists of social issues
like gay marriage and divorce—as if we could vote on the state of our climate, or insist that our pollution is a personal choice. This is the American
mode of denial: we frame acts of destruction as expressions of democracy.
“Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective,” Francis writes in his encyclical. “Not
only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can
range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.” To remain in God’s fullness,
according to Francis, will require that we finally admit that we know—that we have, in fact, known for a very long time—and that we are finally going
to do something about it.
It is easy to look at Representative Paul Gosar, the Republican from Arizona who boycotted the Pope’s appearance in Congress because he couldn’t stand
to risk hearing the words “climate change,” and to laugh (or cry). It is easy to tell yourself that any action you take will offer only “the illusion”
of “making a difference” (and therefore to do nothing). It is easy to rattle off slogans and lies. (The shopworn “I am not a scientist” seemed to have
morphed at the latest G.O.P. debate into “We are not going to destroy our economy!”) What is hard but imperative, if we are to have any chance of
changing course, is to become, as Francis describes it, “painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening in the world into our own personal
suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.”
Reminds me: Time to renew my New Yorker subscription...
\"Probably the airplanes will bring week-enders from Los Angeles before long, and the beautiful poor bedraggled old town will bloom with a
Floridian ugliness.\" (John Steinbeck, 1940, discussing the future of La Paz, BCS, Mexico)
Post all the graphs and mumbo jumbo you like, but nothing is easier for anybody with eyes and a brain to research where the sea level was then and is
now, than actually seeing it compared to a fixed object on the beach:
1953 looking north:
2009 looking south:
2012 looking east:
Our kids and grandkids will likely be able to enjoy the same beach view with palms, just inches above high tide, as it was for our parents over 50
years.
I would say that all the good work of either Mother Nature or Man (depending on your opinion who is mightier) is keeping it in check?!
1953 photo at El Coyote by Howard Gulick. 2009 and 2012 photos by me or Baja Angel as we drove by on Hwy. 1.
"If it were lush and rich, one could understand the pull, but it is fierce and hostile and sullen.
The stone mountains pile up to the sky and there is little fresh water. But we know we must go back
if we live, and we don't know why." - Steinbeck, Log from the Sea of Cortez
"People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." - Theodore Roosevelt
"You can easily judge the character of others by how they treat those who they think can do nothing for them or to them." - Malcolm Forbes
"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others
cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn
"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." - Cunningham's Law
Thankyou to Baja Bound
Mexico InsuranceServices for your long-term support of the BajaNomad.com Forums site.
Emergency Baja Contacts Include:
Desert Hawks;
El Rosario-based ambulance transport; Emergency #: (616) 103-0262
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
