Eighty Years Ago, Drought Covered Much Of The Planet

6 Responses to Eighty Years Ago, Drought Covered Much Of The Planet

1. craigm350 says:

   June 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm

   Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog.

   Reply
2. geran says:

   June 11, 2014 at 2:10 pm

   This kind of research is interesting, informative and extremely relative. We are being told that we are experiencing climate/weather that is “unprecedented”. Most of us know better, but it is good to see actual headlines and articles like these. Otherwise, the Warmists will think we are making it up, like they do!

   Reply
   • _Jim says:

     June 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm

     I remember droughts in the eighties here in Tejas which opened up ‘crevices’ in open (non-developed) fields which were wide enough to present a hazard to cross-country bicycle travel … even walking across those fields one had to be aware of said crevices … and they were at least several feet deep and 2 to 3 inches wide! This on account of the clay soil composition, which expands/swells with the addition of water …

     Reply
   • Andy Oz says:

     June 11, 2014 at 11:42 pm

     +1
     In Oz we have CSIRO climate “experts” waxing lyrical about the end of the world droughts and heatwaves. And they wonder why the government is cutting their budget when they produce pseudo scientific rubbish.
     (PS In Australia “waxing” has a number of colloquial connotations and its appropriate to describe alarmists with)
     http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/06/12/4023302.htm

     Reply
3. pyromancer76 says:

   June 11, 2014 at 9:24 pm

   On a planet covered 70% with water, humans never have to suffer drought again if they spend their money wisely using current technology (esp desalination and piping). This post is about Hot and Drought, but I think it is Cold and Drought that brings down civilizations on a regular basis. I wish we voter/citizens and our officials could turn our attention in this direction. The sun is sleepy.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     June 11, 2014 at 10:34 pm

     +1,0000,0000,….

     Expect food prices to go through the roof along with energy prices. We will have no choice but to move into Sustainable Apartments in Transit Villages because that is all we will be able to afford.

     The move actually makes sense. Just like a farmer uses fences to control his cattle, the government wants to control people by restricting their movement and making them completely dependent “On the Community.” This will allow maximum wealth extraction.

     “If you can not OWN property, you ARE Property.”
     That is the real reason behind Agenda 21.

     One of the moves of the Nazis was to get a complete accounting of the asset of each person. The USDA sent out to everyone who got a horse magazine or a garden catalog the 2010 Ag Census. If you did not fill it out they kept sending them and then followed up with a phone call. The census was several pages long and demanded you list all your assets: buildings farm equipment, animals, toilets, lew paper…. The person I talked to did not understand the hostility she was getting until I explained it to her.

     During the fight over NAIS (National Animal Identification System) The US government wanted to affix not only tags on all animals but a permanent “Premises ID” to all farm land. This ID would be transferred when the land was sold. This was cause for alarm.
     From my notes:

     Words have meaning and contracts use certain words to avoid confusion. The USDA wants you to register your premises because you have livestock (even one).You effectively become a sharecropper, with a clouded title to property. Substituting “premises” for “property” effectively renders property rights null and void. This use of a term (and its meaning, which is often not publicized) is no accident. Property is by far the most powerful legal term, but you can lose your property rights — your ability to admit or deny access, utilize your property, sell or mortgage it, etc., if you do not know the three meanings and the context in which they are employed. Calling the owner a stakeholder and the property a premises, leaves a gray area in property rights.
      
     According to the US Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.” That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

      Stakeholder…..Stakeholders are NOT the owners of the property, legally they are those who hold the property until the owner is determined. The USDA is in effect “branding” or “marking” its property with its number beginning in 840 (the international code designating financial instruments belonging to the USA)

     Property – a.Something that is owned or possessed. Property may be real (land), personal, tangible (touchable), or intangible (such as the interest in a play or other creative work). – U.S. Treasury OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision, in charge of banks, savings and loan associations, etc.) b. the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing: ownership c. something to which a person has legal title.

     Land – Real property or any interest therein.

     Premise is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”
     http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

     The effects of a permanently assigned federal number to your land and the usage of the word ‘premise’ instead of property is cause for serious alarm. Property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it and Property Rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

     Premise signifies a formal part of a deed, and is made to designate an estate; to designate is to name or entitle.  Therefore a premises has no protection under the constitution and has no exclusive rights of the owner tied to it.
      
     Would this property once it has a premise number, even be legal to sell? According to the NAIS document, the premises number stays with the land forever even if there are no animals on it. The inference does not matter if it is land with or without buildings.

     The term premises as defined by Webster states: the preliminary and explanatory part of a deed or of a bill of equity [its being identified in the premises of a deed]  a. a tract of land with the buildings thereon, a building or part of a building with its appurtenances.

     Appurtenances – an incidental right (as in a right of way) attached to a principle property right and passing in possession with it. A subordinate part or adjunct. Accessory objects.

     With all the above defined, you can see why premises is the legal word of choice for the USDA. Premises in the legal sense defines a deed or bill of equity where there is more then one person that has legal access over the items. In this case real estate and a “deed” is given to the USDA. On the other hand, if property is used, it is defined as a sole ownership, no one else has legal claim to it but the person that owns it. Another key word in the definition of premises is appurtenances. As you can see it allows a legal right of way onto land by the parties entering into the contract.

     The 4th and 14th amendment protect our property rights under the constitution. Premises is a term used in a.legal contract you enter into to allow others ownership, much like a lease to an apartment or other real estate you may rent or occupy. Premises are NOT protected. The USDA knew exactly what they where doing. This is why Greg Newindorf in Michigan stood his ground, but had no say over what the USDA did in coming on his property/premises (ownership lost) or what they did in tagging and testing the cows (national herd) for TB.

     Reply