California has a history of abruptly switching from drought conditions to torrential rain.
It turns out California has a long history of major drought followed by massive flooding.
A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again so goes the headline story from a 2013 Scientific American article.
But first the set up:
Climate change is leading to more extreme rainfalls that can overwhelm infrastructure.A deluge of repeated rainstorms set the stage for the near-disaster at the Oroville Dam in California, a crisis that foreshadows what the Golden State can expect more of with climate change, several experts said.While it’s too soon for studies that would look for a climate link to the Oroville drama, experts said climate models show California likely will swing between devastating droughts and extreme storms. That could cause significant problems if the state’s infrastructure isn’t ready, they said. 188,000 people had a mandatory evacuation.
California has a history of abruptly switching from drought conditions to torrential rain.
Brewer describes in 1861-1862 a great sheet of brown rippling water extending from the Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada. One-quarter of the state’s estimated 800,000 cattle drowned in the flood, marking the beginning of the end of the cattle-based ranchero society in California. One-third of the state’s property was destroyed, and one home in eight was destroyed completely or carried away by the floodwaters.
The Coming Megafloods, talks about what is responsible for most of the largest historical floods in many western states. The megaflood to strike the American West in recent history occurred during the winter of 1861-62. California bore the brunt of the damage. This disaster turned enormous regions of the state into inland seas for months, and took thousands of human lives. The costs were devastating: one quarter of California’s economy was destroyed, forcing the state into bankruptcy.
Today, the same regions that were submerged in 1861-62 are home to California’s fastest-growing cities. Although this flood is all but forgotten, important lessons from this catastrophe can be learned. Much of the insight can be gleaned from harrowing accounts in diary entries, letters and newspaper articles, as well as the book Up and Down California in 1860-1864, written by William Brewer, who surveyed the new state’s natural resources with state geologist Josiah Whitney.
In 1861, farmers and ranchers were praying for rain after two exceptionally dry decades. In December their prayers were answered with a vengeance, as a series of monstrous Pacific storms slammed—one after another—into the West coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. The storms produced the most violent flooding residents had ever seen, before or since.
Story continues The Coming Megafloods A great read. Wasn’t this before humans could cause climate change?
Now we go on to drought.
California drought created by politicians over the Delta Smelt.
March 18, 2010 — bunkerville
So which is it Boxer and Feinstein? They were opposed to water September 23rd, 2009. The Democrats opposed legislation the Republicans offered, and voted down giving water to the San Joaquin Valley in favor of the Smelt. Reverse: Now in favor. Why? She sold her vote for Obamacare.
All for Obamacare and getting two more votes.
The president’s health care reforms are on the ropes and the San Joaquin Valley’s two blue-dog Democratic congressmen Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa have been reluctant to support the president’s reforms. So imagine everyone’s surprise when the Department of the Interior announced yesterday that it is dramatically increasing the water supply to the valley’s parched lands. And what a coincidence, now the two California congressmen who were once “undecided” are being moved over into the “yes” column:
As a vote approaches on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare, Code Red is now considering two supposedly “undecided” California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, to now be “yes” votes.
The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared. Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:
“Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.“(“Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California,” U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)
Feinstein & Boxer Vote Against Water for California Farms. September 23rd, 2009 • Richard Cochrane
On the Senate floor, a clearly unhappy Feinstein likened the surprise amendment to Pearl Harbor and she voiced dismay that it would be brought up without her prior knowledge.
The video of Feinstein is either before she was for it or against it. It gets confusing.
A federal judge ruled on in December 2010 that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.
DeMint’s long-shot amendment to a Fiscal 2010 Interior Department funding bill would have effectively restored full irrigation deliveries for a year to what is being referred to as a new Death Valley. The 400 miles San Joaquin Valley is a fertile strip of farm land that produces more fruits and vegetables per square foot than any comparable land in the nation – when it has water, which it does not.
With hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work, food prices rising rapidly and California’s farmers desperate, both its U. S. Senators voted no to an amendment that was billed as a way to help solve the San Joaquin Valley’s water problems.
By a nearly party line 61-36 vote, the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected the amendment offered by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Now the fires.
Obama-Era Eco-Terrorism through Environmental Regulations
These Obama-era regulations introduced excessive layers of bureaucracy that blocked proper forest management and increased environmentalist litigation and costs — a result of far too many radical environmentalists, bureaucrats, Leftist politicians and judicial activists who would rather let forests burn than let anyone thin out overgrown trees or let professional loggers harvest usable timber left from beetle infestation, or selectively cut timber.
In a 2016 Townhall column, Paul Driessen explains:
Eco-purists want no cutting, no thinning – no using fire retardants in “sensitive” areas because the chemicals might get into streams that will be boiled away by conflagrations. They prevent homeowners from clearing brush around their homes, because it might provide cover or habitat for endangered species and other critters that will get incinerated or lose their forage, prey and habitats in the next blaze. They rarely alter their policies during drought years.
The resulting fires are not the “forest-rejuvenating” blazes of environmentalist lore. They are cauldron-hot conflagrations that exterminate wildlife habitats, roast bald eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, boil away trout and trout streams, leave surviving animals to starve, and incinerate every living organism in already thin soils … that then get washed away during future downpours and snow
In September 2016, Governor Brown vetoed SB 1463, a bill in the California legislature which would have required the California Public Utilities Commission to prioritize areas at increased risk from overhead wires in their management of wildfires.
Then we had Brown slashing the forest management budget. Good move moonbeam.
Also note the infamous Delta Smelt budget was not cut… this endangered specie causing the water shutdown thus causing the drought in the lush farmland of Central California.
Governor Newson continued the absurd fire policies as his predecessor.
And the coup de grâce of California at its finest?
More than 2 million people are being plunged into darkness as part of an unprecedented, orchestrated blackout across Northern California. But good luck finding out whether you’re one of them. Bloomberg’s Lynn Doan reports on “Bloomberg Markets.”
That is the best of the swamp today.
For the best in conservative news push the button. Welcome Whatfinger News readers!
Bonus: Feel the green!
Could We Make Humans Smaller Than Cats? Tucker Carlson covered climate change last night. It turned out to be a report with our very own Josef Mengele dressed in the cloak of a “world renown” bioethicist by the name of S. Matthew Liao. Human Engineering is the new buzz word. If we can’t alter the earth’s changing climate in time to save us, then the better mitigation is to simply change humans. Liao spoke at the World Science Festival on June 4 2016. I include a portion of it. The full thing is out there for now on YouTube.
One thing we have learned with Covid and labs. There are a whole lot of labs fooling around with Mother Nature. To even propose these ideas of changing the size of humans, altering our genomes so we cannot eat meat, should chill us to the core. Tucker later on had physicist Koonin on to challenge the notion of the dooms day scenario of Liao. I picked up a composite clip of him and offer it today.
The latest science suggests that it is too late to prevent human-induced climate change. Technological optimists are now turning their minds to mitigation through techniques of geo-engineering, like giant space mirrors or seeding the oceans with iron to prompt carbon-absorbing algal blooms. But projects to alter the entire planet will expose all life to massive risk.
So, why not address the source of the problem and engineer humans to reduce our environmental impact and adapt? Genetic engineering could make us smaller or reduce our appetite for meat. Doses of Oxytocin could make us more sympathetic and cooperative. Such possibilities are criticised as extreme, but are they any more so than re-engineering the planet?
S. Matthew Liao is a professor of philosophy at New York Universtiy.
Genetic engineering could help solve many of the major problems of the 21st century, from eliminating certain diseases to growing more nutritious crops. At the 2016 World Science Festival, bioethicist S. Matthew Liao discussed how it could even help reduce humanity’s footprint on the planet, by making some surprising changes to the human body.
What is not spoken out loud on tape but no doubt talked about behind closed doors is the elimination of some humans totally. Why stop with just small people? We have already been through this with Margaret Sanger.
Interviewed on the Sunrise Weekend morning show, NYU Professor Matthew Liao promotes hormone treatments on children ‘when they’re small’ to close their ‘growth plates’ and thus stunt child growth. Professor Liao says this helps fight climate change since ‘larger people consume more energy than smaller people.’ Weekend Sunrise Australia
Physicist Steve Koonin Challenges Unsettled Climate Change Alarmism
It’s refreshing to get a non-hysterical perspective from a reputable source for a change instead of the babble the media and its political cohorts churn out. There are several interviews with him included. The first one is Tucker Carlson.
The best of the swamp today.
Every now and then they say really what they plan and the thoughts they have for our future. Break our will? How about our bank account and destroy our standard of living. One can only wonder where the outrage is over the XL Keystone pipeline. Here tis:
A Massachusetts climate official said people who heat their homes and fuel their cars will need to have their “will” broken in order to combat emissions and climate change.
“I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from … residential heating and passenger vehicles,” said David Ismay, Massachusetts, undersecretary for climate change, during a virtual meeting with the Vermont Climate Council. “Let me say that again: 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”
Ismay reasoned that climate agencies were running out of options.
“It’s frightening to think an official so high up in the Baker administration is bragging to an out-of-state group about the economic pain he wants to inflict on the very people who he’s supposed to work for,” Paul Craney, a spokesman MFA, told Commonwealth Magazine. “Remarks like this have no place in state government. Ismay should be dismissed from his position in state government, as he’s clearly demonstrated he does not have the best interests of the residents of Massachusetts at heart.
H/T: Washington Examiner
Ed: You think so?
The rally in commodities that some say is the start of a supercycle continued on Monday, buoying resource stocks.
Other than this all is well in the swamp.
It’s all vintage Trump. Trump won’t go out with a whimper. He gives us what he promises. That is why there is no question that he won re-election. But of course an appeals court will step in and no doubt overturn the concept of “faster dishwashers.”
It sums it all up doesn’t it? Shower heads, lightbulbs, flushers… the government must control it al.
Washington (CNN)A coalition of environmental groups sued the Energy Department on Tuesday in an effort to block a new federal rule that would allow for faster dishwashers, arguing it could possibly lead to “higher household utility bills and more pollution.”
The rule finalized by the department in October would create a product class of dishwashers “with a cycle time for the normal cycle of one hour or less from washing through drying.”
But the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other groups want a federal appeals court to review and set aside the new rule, saying it is unnecessary in part because “most of today’s dishwashers already offer quick cycles, including some that take less than an hour.”
EPIC MOMENT: President Trump RANTS About Toilet and Sink Issues – NO WATER PRESSURE
January 15, 2020
And that is that as far as the swamp goes today.
Many of us may have forgotten just how evil the justice department was and used during the Obama/Biden administration regarding climate change. Now with Biden calling Trump a Climate terrorist and that the world will come to an end with four more years of him, let’s take a look at what we are in for with a return of these wretched individuals in high places. Here is a flashback:
AG Loretta Lynch appeared before Congress in March of 20, 2016. The possibility of going after climate deniers by the FBI should put fear in every heart. Can you imagine? Going after businesses and people if they do not accept the faux science of climate change? If this isn’t Alice in Wonderland I don’t know what is. Let’s get to it:
(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.
Republican senators demand the Justice Department cease its investigation; Doug McKelway takes a closer look for ‘Special Report’
Why is DOJ digging into records of climate change skeptics?
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) raised the issue, drawing a comparison between possible civil action against climate change deniers and civil action that the Clinton administration pursued against the tobacco industry for claiming that the science behind the dangers of tobacco was unsettled.
“A request for action by the Department of Justice has been referred by you to the FBI. My question to you is other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.
“Senator, thank you for raising that issue, and thank you for your work in this area. I know your commitment is deep. This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.
Everything going swell in the swamp and as expected.
If your new home isn’t carbon neutral, an Elizabeth Warren presidency might not let you build it. And if that means no new homes get built in the United States, the Massachusetts senator and Democrat presidential nominee says she’s fine with that.
In the fog of being overloaded with news, it is easy to miss just how radical the Democrat nominees are. We should be concerned that the two communists are either leading or close to it in some polls. What in the world are people thinking? It is now acceptable to destroy our economy on the altar of Progressive Climate Change nonsense? No drill baby drill for her. She would have us live in tents as in San Fran? It’s interesting that none of this was brought forth in the recent debate. But of course.
All of this comes after she made her millions flipping houses.
In her 2006 book All Your Worth, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia, Warren lists as a top myth the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping them quickly.” She has made a career out of telling people how to behave in financially responsible ways, and out of creating laws that will make it illegal for them to do otherwise.
WesternJournal report: During her appearance on Morning Joe, Warren was asked what she’d do to “change the tide of U.S. policy on the issue of climate change” and acted as if she’d been thrown the softball of all softballs.
“That means we’ve got to be willing to do things, for example, like regulation. By 2028, no new buildings, no new houses, without a zero carbon footprint.”
And she’s coming for your car and electricity bill, too.
“By 2030, trucks — light-duty trucks and cars, zero carbon footprint. By 2035, all production of electricity, zero carbon footprint,” Warren said.
Oh, and there was also talk of some vague idea of social justice — because schemes like this always need to be undergirded with some such vague idea-
“We also need to make environmental justice really at the heart of our climate plan,” Warren said.
Mr. Mika showed no inquisitiveness about her plans.
Other than that all is A-OK in the swamp.
For the best in news
I KID YOU NOT
Obese people contribute to global warming as they emit more carbon dioxide than those of a normal weight, according to research.” This from the Daily Mail
Leave us your suggestions (or likely outcomes of heavily socialist programs) for solving the problem. Regale us with your best ideas, or better yet, send an email to Faidon Magkos at email@example.com. He could probably use the support.
The Pope’s big deal at the Amazon meeting held recently was the discussion regarding married priests which took the headline. As with all of these meetings, it’s always good to look further. We are just learning about the fine print.
The low background hum you hear are the globalists and now the Pope advancing the over population of the planet theme. By golly, they will find a way to bring earth back to the glory days of Adam and Eve. After all, who should want to bring a child into this terrible earth we are living on. Killing Mother Earth.. is it 10 or 12 years we have left? I get so confused. Well that was quick, Catholics went past birth control being a sin to abortion all in one Pope’s reign.
If we thought this notion of just too many of us started recently, I will swing by Africa and what Obama’s thoughts were back in 2013.
But back to the tale:
“The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, members of a United Nations network directed by a pro-abortion globalist [Jeffrey Sachs], and governors of the Pan-Amazonian region have signed a common declaration committing themselves to implementing the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) in the Amazon.
“The Oct. 28 declaration, addressed to Pope Francis and signed at the pontifical academy’s Vatican headquarters one day after the close of the Amazon Synod, consists in 14 pledges to ‘build together effective solutions for sustainable development of Amazonia.’”
The three-week gathering, or synod, discussed spreading the faith in the Amazon, a greater role for women, environmental protection, climate change, deforestation, indigenous people and their right to keep their land and traditions.
While the sustainable development goals include “universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes,” their focus is providing for abortion.
The SDGs indeed are all about abortion. They propose that we make the planet a safer place through population control, i.e. abortion, but this is done under the guise of caring for the poor. The globalist ploy is to say that ‘we shouldn’t bring people into the world to suffer but should first take care of the poor that are among us.’
According to U.N. globalists, the big “sin” against the planet is the birthing of children since they will grow up to “pollute” the environment, so they see abortion as a sacrifice to this terrestrial deity, in a similar way children have been sacrificed to the Pachamama idol. The “Mother Earth” Pachamama idol that was venerated at the Vatican during the Amazon Synod merely symbolized this globalist cause of “atoning” to the planet. To think that Rome has joined the infamous U.N. in bowing to its planetary idol!
But it doesn’t end there. Pope Francis has handed the Church’s evangelical mission over to the United Nations, telling them, ‘you are now the pastors of the flock,’ and he tells the flock, ‘the U.N. representatives are now your pastors. When they speak, it is your duty to obey.’ Consider his discourse from a September 10 press conference on route to Rome from Madagascar.
“When we acknowledge international organizations and we recognize their capacity to give judgment, on a global scale — for example the international tribunal in The Hague, or the United Nations — If we consider ourselves humanity, when they make statements, our duty is to obey … We must obey international institutions. That is why the United Nations were created.”
Let’s take a look at what and the why of Africans as well and why no doubt their population needs to be controlled. T.V.’s and cars and air conditioning will just boil over the planet.
Back in 2013
President Barack Obama said at a town hall event in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday gives us this doom and gloom.
“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.” –
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news tap the button.
The Robert’s Supreme court deals another blow. This time to the energy industry. The Supremes will allow a State court to proceed with an energy law suit at the same time the case resides in the fourth circuit federal appeals court for a ruling on jurisdiction. The court did not disclose a vote count or reasons for rejecting the request for a stay. Just to show how bizarre this is:
Former Mayor Catherine Pugh decided to move ahead with the case, (2018) despite decisions against similar lawsuits in California and New York only days before Baltimore’s filing. In California, District Judge William Alsup determined in May 2018 that cases brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against energy companies belonged in the federal judiciary, and strongly questioned key parts of the case, including the allegation that energy companies had created a “public nuisance” against an entire community. Rebuking the plaintiffs, he stated, “If we didn’t have fossil fuels, would have lost [World War II] and every other war. Planes wouldn’t fly. Trains wouldn’t run. And we’d be back in the Stone Age.”
But not the first of this:
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that bans mining at the nation’s largest known uranium deposit.
Sure, why not stop our Uranium production after Hillary was kind enough to give 20 percent of our deposits to the Russians.
The Supreme Court allowed the city of Baltimore to proceed with its climate change lawsuit against two dozen fossil fuel companies Tuesday, after the corporate defendants asked the justices to put the dispute on hold.
The oil and natural gas companies — among them BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — are fighting to move Baltimore’s lawsuit out of a Maryland state court into a federal court. They wanted the justices to stop state court proceedings while they fight to remove the dispute to a federal forum.
The lawsuit alleges that the fossil fuel companies have engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal the harm of greenhouse gas emissions that attend the use of their products. The plaintiffs claim the energy industry has been investigating atmospheric carbon accumulation since at least 1958, and has long been aware of its environmental consequences.
After Baltimore lawyers filed their complaint in state court, the corporate defendants tried to move the case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander rejected that request. The companies are now fighting that decision in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to produce a decision.
The defendants went to the Supreme Court because state proceedings are slated to continue while the 4th Circuit considers their bid to move the dispute into the federal system.
A portion of an earlier B-ville post:
June 19, 2019
In the process, of course, we do untold damage to important industries that we need or want for our country’s wheels to go round. In this case in Baltimore against energy companies.
Another example of this type of action is suing various drug manufacturers for billions of dollars regarding Opioids. Continuing this course will either bankrupt the companies, or damage them to the extent of limiting the research funds available for new discoveries.
The opioid manufacturers included in the lawsuit are Purdue Pharma, Cephalon, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, while the opioid distributors are McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. More than 1,800 lawsuits have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies.
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news push the button. So much better than Drudge.
“My home is not a detail” so goes the argument against a wind farm landing cable site to be strewn throughout their particular clump of sand on tony Long Island. The battle between the very super rich and the super rich – Not in my back yard!!
So will it be Wainscott? Or twelve mies away away in Hither Hills in Montauk for a substation and run twelve miles of cable? Or no wind farm?
The transmission line would go through an area where homeowners include the billionaire Ronald Lauder and Marci Klein, daughter of Calvin Klein.
EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. — This affluent enclave on the East End of Long Island is steeped in eco-conscious pride, with strict water quality and land preservation rules and an abundance of electric cars on the roads.
Wainscott is home to many affluent homeowners, some of whom oppose having the transmission cable landing site in their neighborhood.
But then came word that the project’s transmission cable was going to land in Wainscott, one of the most exclusive slices of the already exclusive Hamptons, where homeowners include the likes of the cosmetics billionaire Ronald Lauder and Marci Klein, a former longtime producer of “Saturday Night Live” and the daughter of Calvin Klein.
Soon a push to protect the planet was out and the imperative to protect a golden plot of sand was in. Homeowners organized and hired an army of lawyers, lobbyists, public relations experts and engineers to argue their case.
…still, he added, “their zeal for wind power need not be exclusive with picking the best available landing site.
Some view the landing site as a detail in the big picture of addressing climate control. But it is not a detail where the landing site is. My home is not a detail.” Wainscott is home to many affluent homeowners, some of whom oppose having the transmission cable landing site in their neighborhood.
Now the developer of the wind farm may turn to an alternate landing site, bringing the cable ashore in Hither Hills in Montauk, a popular state park, and then burying it for nearly 12 miles before connecting it to a substation.
In Montauk, resentment is building among some residents over the idea that they may be forced to accept the cable landing because of a campaign mounted by the deep-pocketed in Wainscott. (P.S. Montauk is building a war chest to block it as well.)
From New York Times