Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
dirtbagathlete

human powered approaches vs heli, planes, skidoos

Recommended Posts

Carl, Carl, Carl. You are, if nothing else, the byproduct of a post post modern society.

 

dude, that organic section comes from factory farms in the Salinas valley.

 

it's like every other sector of American life - a large number of small niche producers who claim less than 20% of the market and several large manufacturers that claim the rest of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did we go from heli approaches to farming?? You never did reply to that article on the Ozone:

http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.htm#Addendum

 

So there we have it. The conceptual "ozone layer" is not some delicate, static and fragile wrapping about the outer atmosphere but rather a dynamic and highly volatile component, both created and destroyed by solar radiation. Ozone creation is a continuous process, so we can not "run out" of stratospheric ozone. The more ozone (O3) is destroyed, the more free oxygen radicals (O1) are available to bind with free oxygen (O2) to create ozone (O3), the same applies with free oxygen (O2).

Is stratospheric ozone "disappearing" around the world? No. The adjacent plot is from Mauna Loa Observatory and changes, if any, are trivial compared with variability throughout the year.

 

Returning to "the hole", is the resultant surface UV irradiation high compared with the rest of the world? Nope, the tropics are much more heavily irradiated every single day (it's part of the "tropical paradise" thing). In fact, the bulk of the temperate zones are more heavily irradiated than the region "under the hole" every clear day of the year.

 

Is "the hole" of any real significance to people or the planet? Not so far as anyone can tell.

 

Should we worry about it? Unless you're a scientist earning a living from it, it's probably not worth a second thought.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!

John Herron, Thursday 09 August 2007 - 20:06:28 // comment: 1

 

 

In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug!

 

Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

 

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

 

Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)

 

Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940

 

The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900

 

1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

 

1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

 

 

We're almost back to the 1970's theory of global cooling! The data clearly changes things.

 

Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time:

 

8 of the past 10 years had been above average.

 

1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years!

 

 

Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all.

 

First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

 

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

 

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. It ain't crab fishing or police work, but far more people die in agriculture than in cubes.

 

Farmers exagerate everything into an extreme negative. I had a good laugh at one comedian talking about how you never hear a farmer on the news saying that he had a really great crop this year and will be buying a couple more million dollar tractors.

 

You're touting farming as one of the most dangerous professions??? More people die at the recycling depot!!! If you had one of them talk about how dangerous their job is you'd laugh. In fact its only slightly higher than a taxi cab/chauffer, so an 8 hour drive to and from the farm is almost as likely to kill you as driving your tractor around the field for 8 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the stats Mr. Plane. Having grown up on a farm I can also attest to the high number of accidents. Farming accidents are very common in rural communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did we go from heli approaches to farming??

OK, two things.

First, discussions on this board can literally begin with any given topic and end on something completely unrelated.

 

Second, shut up, nobody reads your posts anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the stats Mr. Plane. Having grown up on a farm I can also attest to the high number of accidents. Farming accidents are very common in rural communities.

1 Logging workers 92.4 85

2 Aircraft pilots 92.4 109

3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4 38

4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0 31

5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2 35

6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5 307

7 Roofers 34.9 94

8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0 36

9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6 905

10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2 67

 

So according to the stats that you guys posted 24.2 of 100,000 people die driving taxi/chauffering, and 37.5 die farming/ranching, and 43.2 die collecting refuse and recyclables. So driving taxi for 8 hours is just about as dangerous as driving tractor and I've never heard a cabi or a dump truck driver touting how dangerous their job is.

 

How did we go from heli approaches to farming??

OK, two things.

First, discussions on this board can literally begin with any given topic and end on something completely unrelated.

 

Second, shut up, nobody reads your posts anyway.

 

Uh, you just read my post and replied to it... thanks for coming out Retard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only imagine the response if someone suggested cutting off welfare payments - at least during harvest season - to able-bodied males and childless women who weren't in some kind of a training program, and who refused offers of employment from farmers at whatever wage rate was in effect at the time.

 

Your ideal equation may provide some insight on paper, but it still doesn't address this logistical problem: the majority of welfare recipients live in cities; too far from farms to provide a labor force. Rural areas with sparse populations can't support the large, migrant populations of workers they need during certain critical times of year. Like it or not, farming communities need a migrant labor force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the stats Mr. Plane. Having grown up on a farm I can also attest to the high number of accidents. Farming accidents are very common in rural communities.

1 Logging workers 92.4 85

2 Aircraft pilots 92.4 109

3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4 38

4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0 31

5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2 35

6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5 307

7 Roofers 34.9 94

8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0 36

9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6 905

10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2 67

 

So according to the stats that you guys posted 24.2 of 100,000 people die driving taxi/chauffering, and 37.5 die farming/ranching, and 43.2 die collecting refuse and recyclables. So driving taxi for 8 hours is just about as dangerous as driving tractor and I've never heard a cabi or a dump truck driver touting how dangerous their job is.

 

How did we go from heli approaches to farming??

OK, two things.

First, discussions on this board can literally begin with any given topic and end on something completely unrelated.

 

Second, shut up, nobody reads your posts anyway.

 

Uh, you just read my post and replied to it... thanks for coming out Retard.

 

These stats are completely irrelevant to the discussion. People don't shy away from farming because its 'dangerous' (although listing farming as being in the middle of what are probably the top 10 most dangerous jobs actually contradicts your point, if, in fact, you have one.). We don't need immigrant farm labor because the jobs they do are too 'dangerous'. We need them because a) the work is hard and many Americans are unwilling to do it, b) there aren't enough Americans to do the work in those areas when it's needed most and c) they're willing to follow the harvest from place to place.

 

If danger was a deterrent, people wouldn't be lining up down the block to become firemen.

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl, Carl, Carl. You are, if nothing else, the byproduct of a post post modern society.

 

dude, that organic section comes from factory farms in the Salinas valley.

 

it's like every other sector of American life - a large number of small niche producers who claim less than 20% of the market and several large manufacturers that claim the rest of the market.

 

If you substitute land line usage verses cell phone usage, then this very same 80/20 statistic applied...in 1996. That has been upended somewhat.

 

I realize that it's hard for the young to grasp this, but...welcome to a dynamic world, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you substitute land line usage verses cell phone usage, then this very same 80/20 statistic applied...in 1996. That has been upended somewhat.

 

I realize that it's hard for the young to grasp this, but...welcome to a dynamic world, my friend.

 

The structure of the mobile business proves my point quite well. In 1996 there were a large number of providers who gradually consolidated to a few large carriers (as is the pattern for most businesses). I'd challegne you to find a profitable (or unprofitable for that matter) industry that isn't seeing consolidation in the current era.

 

BTW: This year was the first that the number of cell only homes eclipsed land-line only home. The world is not a yuppie seattle suburb :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you substitute land line usage verses cell phone usage, then this very same 80/20 statistic applied...in 1996. That has been upended somewhat.

 

I realize that it's hard for the young to grasp this, but...welcome to a dynamic world, my friend.

 

The structure of the mobile business proves my point quite well. In 1996 there were a large number of providers who gradually consolidated to a few large carriers (as is the pattern for most businesses). I'd challegne you to find a profitable (or unprofitable for that matter) industry that isn't seeing consolidation in the current era.

 

BTW: This year was the first that the number of cell only homes eclipsed land-line only home. The world is not a yuppie seattle suburb :wave:

 

Yes, consolidation can happen as industries mature. Duh. And the trend for cell phone usage (and wireless voice over internet, which is essentially the same physical experience), which you've conveniently omitted, speaks for itself. You also mistated the key statistic. The number of 'cell phone ONLY' homes may be at 50% (which is huge, and growing), but cell phone talk time crushes landline talk time these days. So, in fact, the world IS a Seattle yuppie suburb. I'd like to say nice try on this one, but it was actually a really lame try. You're kind of off your game, today.

 

Agribusiness has already undergone enormous consolidation. Duh. That trend, however, is wavering. A switch to sustainable methods is inevitable: it will either happen voluntarily or be forced by mother nature. The question is whether factory farms will switch, or whether the industry will continue to go more local with smaller sized producers. Time will tell.

 

And that's the problem with historical, cross industrial analogies. They are never 100% repeatable, are they (even assuming, of course, that you present them correctly)?

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only imagine the response if someone suggested cutting off welfare payments - at least during harvest season - to able-bodied males and childless women who weren't in some kind of a training program, and who refused offers of employment from farmers at whatever wage rate was in effect at the time.

 

Your ideal equation may provide some insight on paper, but it still doesn't address this logistical problem: the majority of welfare recipients live in cities; too far from farms to provide a labor force. Rural areas with sparse populations can't support the large, migrant populations of workers they need during certain critical times of year. Like it or not, farming communities need a migrant labor force.

 

I'm sure the farmers would spring for the tab for the Greyhounds they'd need to get the labor force to the farms.

 

I think I recall something like this happening in places that were experiencing shortages of farm labor, and I vaguely recall that it wasn't terribly successful because the workers they got were so inferior - from the farmer's perspective - to the migrant laborers that they were accustomed to.

 

I think the actual outcome of a "work on the farm or go hungry" policy would be an increase in crimes committed by people who conclude that boosting stereos provides a better effort-to-reward ratio than working on a farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The number of 'cell phone ONLY' homes may be at 50% (which is huge, and growing)

 

it's at 14% cell only vs. 12.3% for landline. The others utilize both.

 

Continue to expectorate out your anus please - that's the only condscension you are worth today :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be kind of interesting to compare the total value of welfare payments (per recipient) to the total compensation of agricultural workers (per worker) in order to see if we have artificially contstrained the labor market for farm workers by creating a class of people who can earn a higher "wage" by doing nothing, rather than working in fields.

 

If that's the case, then the farmers would be justified in claiming that labor market distortions created by the government are part of the reason why they can't attract labor at true market rates.

 

This from memory, but I remember reading that the average welfare payment is less than $500 a month. This does not include subsidized housing or food stamps.

 

Last year, during the picker shortage, pickers in E. Wa could make $150 a day...more in a week than you could make in a month on welfare. Plus, their dinero is worth even more south of the border.

 

Part of the labor shortage stems from a lack of population 'willing' to work those jobs in rural areas. This creates a demand for a migratory labor force that the area could not support year round.

 

Just thinking out loud on that one - but just to continue the exercise further, you'd probably have to find the pay-threshold at which working extremely hard in hot fields becomes more desirable than earning less pay for doing nothing.

 

If X is the pay for doing nothing, and it's enough to live on, then I imagine that they pay for working hard in a field would have to be some multiple of X in order to persuade people to accept the trade-off.

 

I can only imagine the response if someone suggested cutting off welfare payments - at least during harvest season - to able-bodied males and childless women who weren't in some kind of a training program, and who refused offers of employment from farmers at whatever wage rate was in effect at the time.

Believe it or not, there are many people in the world who actually do have a work ethic and would be ashamed to accept money when they are able-bodied. Earning one's own way is not only an economic drive, it is also something instilled into us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The number of 'cell phone ONLY' homes may be at 50% (which is huge, and growing)

 

it's at 14% cell only vs. 12.3% for landline. The others utilize both.

 

Continue to expectorate out your anus please - that's the only condscension you are worth today :wave:

 

Nice feint, and 50% was a speedread misread on my part (we all speed read this shit, don't we?) but your last analogy (that cell phone usage is somehow NOT headed rapidly from from 20/80 to 80/20) is still heading for the Pacific with flames coming out of it's gaping tail pipe. Yes, industries can quickly flip flop, and agriculture is no different. Now, you probably don't even remember the point you were trying to make here, so you're forgiven, dear young Carl. Party on.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice feint, and 50% was a speedread misread on my part (we all speed read this shit, don't we?) but your last analogy (that cell phone usage is somehow NOT headed rapidly from from 20/80 to 80/20) is still heading for the Pacific with flames coming out of it's gaping tail pipe. Yes, industries can quickly flip flop, and agriculture is no different. Now, you probably don't even remember the point you were trying to make here, so you're forgiven, dear young Carl. Party on.

 

 

I'm going to not read your post, make up a number, insult you and be condscending. I'm not even going to bother to try and make it topical though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe it or not, there are many people in the world who actually do have a work ethic and would be ashamed to accept money when they are able-bodied. Earning one's own way is not only an economic drive, it is also something instilled into us.

 

In the world? yes.

 

In America? Pass the welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't believe that. The majority of the Americans I know are honest, hardworking people. Of course, they don't spray at work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice feint, and 50% was a speedread misread on my part (we all speed read this shit, don't we?) but your last analogy (that cell phone usage is somehow NOT headed rapidly from from 20/80 to 80/20) is still heading for the Pacific with flames coming out of it's gaping tail pipe. Yes, industries can quickly flip flop, and agriculture is no different. Now, you probably don't even remember the point you were trying to make here, so you're forgiven, dear young Carl. Party on.

 

 

I'm going to not read your post, make up a number, insult you and be condscending. I'm not even going to bother to try and make it topical though.

 

OK , I'm sorry for being mean. Friends again? Can I offer you a grass fed peach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't believe that. The majority of the Americans I know are honest, hardworking people. Of course, they don't spray at work...

 

The only hardworking people I've met in industry are imports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be kind of interesting to compare the total value of welfare payments (per recipient) to the total compensation of agricultural workers (per worker) in order to see if we have artificially contstrained the labor market for farm workers by creating a class of people who can earn a higher "wage" by doing nothing, rather than working in fields.

 

If that's the case, then the farmers would be justified in claiming that labor market distortions created by the government are part of the reason why they can't attract labor at true market rates.

 

This from memory, but I remember reading that the average welfare payment is less than $500 a month. This does not include subsidized housing or food stamps.

 

Last year, during the picker shortage, pickers in E. Wa could make $150 a day...more in a week than you could make in a month on welfare. Plus, their dinero is worth even more south of the border.

 

Part of the labor shortage stems from a lack of population 'willing' to work those jobs in rural areas. This creates a demand for a migratory labor force that the area could not support year round.

 

Just thinking out loud on that one - but just to continue the exercise further, you'd probably have to find the pay-threshold at which working extremely hard in hot fields becomes more desirable than earning less pay for doing nothing.

 

If X is the pay for doing nothing, and it's enough to live on, then I imagine that they pay for working hard in a field would have to be some multiple of X in order to persuade people to accept the trade-off.

 

I can only imagine the response if someone suggested cutting off welfare payments - at least during harvest season - to able-bodied males and childless women who weren't in some kind of a training program, and who refused offers of employment from farmers at whatever wage rate was in effect at the time.

Believe it or not, there are many people in the world who actually do have a work ethic and would be ashamed to accept money when they are able-bodied. Earning one's own way is not only an economic drive, it is also something instilled into us.

 

I agree, but it seems like by definition these values are typically not quite as robust in the average multi-year or multi-generational welfare recipient that might otherwise make a good candidate for farm labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree, but it seems like by definition these values are typically not quite as robust in the average multi-year or multi-generational welfare recipient that might otherwise make a good candidate for farm labor.

 

'It seems, by definition'? Just how many of these folks to you actually know, anyway? Pretty general statement without much first hand experience, it seems to me. 'Conventional wisdom' rides again.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×