Talk about a tempest in a tea cup. Chipotle, the hip “fast food” joint that caters to the skinny jeans and tasteful nose ring crowd, put out a guacamole crisis warning a little while ago. Apparently, Chipotle thought everyone needed to know that guacamole might be dropped from their restaurants because of … climate change.
Avocados are smaller than average apparently, and becoming more rare—which makes them more expensive. Or some similar garbage. I guess global warming cooling climate change has made growing conditions less favorable? I don’t know. In the words of some genius at Chipotle:
Increasing weather volatility or other long-term changes in global weather patterns, including any changes associated with global climate change, could have a significant impact on the price or availability of some of our ingredients. . . .
In the event of cost increases with respect to one or more of our raw ingredients, we may choose to temporarily suspend serving menu items, such as guacamole or one or more of our salsas, rather than paying the increased cost for the ingredients.
Give me a break! First off, have you ever gotten guacamole at Chipotle? I never do anymore. And I love guacamole. But they charge about two dollars (two dollars!) for a pretty ungenerous little cup of that creamy green goodness. So this “warning” feels like a total stunt. Because even if avocados became as rare as morel mushrooms and smaller than ping pong balls, Chipotle would still be turning a profit at their current prices.
Chipotle came around finally to telling us that we have nothing to fear. Guacamole is here to stay. For now. But it might still be a good idea for us to invest in toxic-chemical solar panels and toxic-chemical hybrid batteries. And while we’re at it, we can all get ear gages, curled mustachios, and flannel shirts. I mean, we wouldn’t want to take any chances, right?
http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/avocado/
he
drug cartels in Mexico and taking over whole towns whose very economic
existence depends on the avocado – that is the problem – not the
weather. See:
http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/avocado/
Fukushima has killed the Pacific and you dolts dither about guacamole? Human race deserves to go extinct.
You first!
deleted my comment b/c I realized I wasn’t sure how your comment should be read
Here in the pacific we are doing fine. Background radiation levels are not excessive. Not sure what part of the pacific you are living in.
I had to laugh last night when the local network TV broadcast morons forgot to use the new keyword “climate change” and said global warming on that story. The “news” cast went on to the rest of what they covered which was how all time cold temp records were being shattered all over the place. Morons! But then most of the listeners are morons too so it works.
This isn’t a laughing matter. I grow avocados in San Diego County, and the continued drought and high water prices are killing us. A lot of avo trees are being torn out and replaced by citrus because it uses less water; other growers are simply “stumping” their trees –cutting them back to a shortened trunk and a couple of pruned-back branches — and then not watering them, hoping that there’ll be more water next year; they started doing that back in ’08 or so and the water still isn’t there! As far as the Mexican avos go, they’re our biggest competitor and I see no lessening of that source of supply, as they’re grown in subtropical areas with more rainfall than we are getting in Southern CA. We owe that incursion not to Obama but to the ‘free trade’ policies of the Bush years, when the high tariffs on Mexican avos were removed.
Sorry the drought is affecting you. I wonder if you would get some relief if the environmentalist stopped having millions of gallons of water diverted to the ocean to “save” some or other fish whose name I can’t remember? I know it’ll sound harsh, but if an industry needs tariffs on competitors to survive – maybe it’s time to change crops. Do you advocate everyone paying artificially high prices or dealing with shortages for avocados (i.e. if tariffs were in place) just so you can keep growing that crop? Doesn’t sound fair to the majority.
First of all, yes, diverting all that water to save a few minnows is idiotic; I suggest they be ground up for bait on the way down the spillways. As a free market supporter, I also agree that subsidies, etc. are not the way to go. As to Mexican avos, I was just pointing out that the cartels aren’t causing a shortage of them; they’re shipping lots of avos up here. Finally, as to tariffs, etc., keep in mind that they’re supposed to protect domestic industries and workers. Loosening protections doesn’t necessarily make everybody in the US more prosperous; it arguably costs domestic jobs and/or lowers wages. Remember Ross Perot’s comment in ’92 about “that sound you hear is the sound of jobs being sucked out of the US by NAFTA?” [i.e., the No. American Free Trade Agreement pushed by Daddy Bush ]
And here I thought NAFTA was passed by slick willie, but since you want to blame Bush father and son I must be wrong.
It was passed by Clinton, michael.
you are not wrong,but ca is overrun by the dems,& according to obama it’s Bushes fault.
Signed by Bush Sr., ratification pushed thru the Senate by Clinton. Both are to blame.
But NAFTA was passed by Clinton, not Bush. Blame him. You guys need to stop blaming the Bush’ for everything. It’s getting pretty old.
don’t you mean the NAFTA bs agreement signed by clinton?
How did we get from global warming to climate change? Global warming just didn’t work for them..lol. Have you ever seen an abandoned wind farm? They can’t even clean up their own mess, not to mention the thirty Eagles they killed last year with those things.
Actually, that was the doing of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who told the Republican sound machine to use a less threatening term.
The planet is warming; last year was the fourth-warmest on record.
not true
On the one hand, you said you believed in science and now, you are disclaiming its verdict? Par for the course for you Rightard ChristiaNazi hypocrites.
not your form of junk science
Yeah, NASA is in the habit of doing “junk science.”
There is a great overview of MIT’s Richard Lindzen in the
Weekly Standard! An excerpt:
In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The
public roll-out of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes
and Feedback s”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of
catastrophe.
For those who think doubters of “Climate Change” don’t care about the environment, or pollution, or somehow discount science, nothing could be further from the
truth.
We simply don’t accept that the hysteria is based on good and accurate science, and many of us
see the proposed “solutions” as exceedingly harmful to people—especially the most vulnerable and poor around the world.
The models used to predict catastrophe have failed—and when the facts don’t match your theory,
you need to change. Unless… your goal is not truth and authentic science, but getting a piece of the massive grant money out there or, as a politician and businessman, gaining power and wealth from the “solutions.
H. L. Mencken
is proven right again:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Twenty facts about CO2 that have been kept ‘top secret’ by the man-made global warming community
1. We know everything about physico-chemical properties of CO2 there is to know since its discovery 200 years ago, and categorical statement can be made
that the physico-chemical properties of CO2 in its pure state, including IR properties, have nothing to do with its properties as part of the mixture called air.
2. We know that no gas molecule of the open system, as our atmosphere is, can possibly control temperature.
3. We know that there are two very different mechanisms that drive dynamics of CO2 exchange between air-water and air-biomass and therefore there is no such thing as global levels of CO2. Levels of CO2 above the water mass, covering 70% of the Earth surface is controlled by solubility of CO2 in water which is solely driven by temperature; while levels of CO2 above the biomass that covers most of the land surfaces is solely driven and controlled by photosynthesis.
4. We know that the only way to know exact numbers about CO2 concentrations above the water and biomass surfaces is to measure them at the surface levels,
which we do not do, and therefore use of CO2 levels measured at a single point on the globe and at 4000 meters altitude (Mauna Loa Observatory, MLO, at
Hawaii) represents one of the most miss-used high accuracy dataset in the history of modern science.
5. We know that the total emissions / reabsorption of CO2 by nature makes emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels totally insignificant and lost in the instrumental accuracy levels.
6. We know that the levels of CO2 that we live amidst in our everyday lives have nothing in common with the observed CO2 levels at MLO based at an altitude
of 4000 meters above sea level.
7. We know that there is no difference between CO2 levels accurately measured 200 years ago and last year – they all go up and down depending when and where you measure them.
8. We know that there is no possible correlation between CO2 levels dissolved in water in its liquid state and CO2 levels found in ice, i.e. water in its solid state.
9. We know that it is CO2 that makes major contribution to the width of tree rings. So, no CO2 means no tree rings and no life.
10. We know that the human body ignores CO2 levels in air when breathing in and the only function of breathing out is to get rid of CO2 that is created in every cell of the human body by the complex bio-chemical process that maintains life.
11. We know that CO2 levels would need to reach concentration in air of 60,000 ppm (from current levels of 390 ppm) to become toxic for humans.
12. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of NOTHING.
13. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore one has to offer some explanation as to what those 2500 ‘other or NOT-CO2’ molecules are doing while 1 molecule among them is receiving and ‘back radiating’ all that heat energy.
14. We know that every molecule of CO2, irrespective of which source it comes from, can go up-and-down (in Z-axis) due to its molecular weight, its heat capacity and its solubility in water (rain or snow) and along (X-Y space)
carried by wind. Therefore someone has to be able to explain: how does a molecule of CO2 generated by an SUV in Los Angeles gets transported across 2500
miles of water mass to Hawaii and then go up another 4000 meters, while avoiding all the biomass available within few miles of land surface in California and all the water mass along its journey to the CO2 detector at MLO, Hawaii?
15. We know for certain that at 200 ppm of CO2 plants stops growing and that the optimum levels for plants grow is between 1300 and 1500 ppm, and yet the advice to all governments around the globe is to commit mass suicide of all species by reducing CO2 concentrations to 200 ppm levels.
16. We know that there is no difference whether we grow or dig fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, we know that CO2 emissions from burning fuel are irrelevant to the CO2 dynamics of emissions/absorption and yet we use our precious food-growing surfaces to grow fuel and thus create famine and kill life.
17. We know that there is no such a thing as self-heating greenhouse and yet new theories have been invented to argue something that cannot be argued.
18. We know that there is nothing in common in IR spectra between CO2, methane and water and yet they have been classified together as ‘greenhouse gases’ because they absorb infrared radiation, together with millions of other molecules.
19. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere could not be detected by a standard IR-spectrometer and yet that property of CO2 has been used to argue for the existence of a greenhouse effect.
20. We know that all the knowledge about the physical world comes from experiments that can be validated and not from calculations that cannot be validated. And yet, everything about man-made global warming is about
calculations and NOTHING about measurements.
The Weakly Double-Standard?!? Makes great bathroom reading, kind-of like the Weekly World News. Objectivity is not exactly its forte.
The science is simple: We constantly measure the mean temperature of the planet. As is gleaned from the chart, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png, it is increasing. (Unlike Rightards, I do trust NASA to collect data like this.)
So, what caused that increase? Increased solar activity has been properly ruled out, as there appears to be no meaningful correlation between the two. By default, the cause has to be human activity.
It doesn’t have to be exclusively attributable to CO2. Just stand on a black-topped parking lot in your bare feet, and step over onto the manicured lawn. In essence, we have altered the planetary albedo by retaining more radiation than what would have occurred in a state of nature. The point is that we have done this to ourselves.
Richard Muller was part of Lindzen’s chorus, even taking money from the Koch brothers. But he recently changed his tune: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video Why is Lindzen right, and Dr. Muller (and the rest of the scientific community) wrong?
From the article: “ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Follow the bouncing baby Drugs Limpballs.Conservatives have been playing this card forever, screaming about the socialist plot to take over America. As part of this scheme to protect their fascist oligarchy, they have concocted the pernicious fiction that we’re really not doing anything to harm the planet, and that this is an integral part of that campaign.
I agree with Mencken. Follow the money….
So truth has no value to you, I understand now.
Siq: “So truth has no value to you
What anal orifice did you pull THAT ONE out of?
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is not in your favor; you reject it because truth has no value to you.
nothing to say. no facts. just name calling how funny are you.
H. L. Mencken
is proven right again:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a
continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
“SOCIALISM!!!!” Yup.
not sure what you are or whose name you are using today however:
What part of you are a wast (waste) my time do you not understand?
more of the brainless name calling with no facts
siquijorisland
What part of you are a wast (waste) my time do you not understand?
what part of wast (waste) my time do you not understand?
Have you not heard of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group? they have been systematically attempting “to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse”.
According to the documents that Snowden has uncovered, some show that they are willing to sink to despicable lows in order to get the results that they desire…
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate
outcomes it considers desirable.
We’ve seen our oligarchs pull stunts like that since Nixon’s “dirty tricks” squad, and that is the entire mission of Faux News. e.g., http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-13-2014/fox-news-welfare-academy. We have our Voice of America; Putin has Russia Today. But on what objective basis do you claim that NASA and independent scientists are fabricating the data? A conspiracy of that magnitude would make the Truthers’ case wrt 9/11 seem like child’s play by comparison.
If you have lived long enough, you have seen the changes at first hand. The Sarah Palinesque notion that the planet is getting warmer because God is just hugging us closer is risible. We have eliminated all conceivable natural causes and, by process of elimination, human activity is the only possible remaining cause.
I would think that the Koch brothers are highly motivated to make you believe that their activities are not destroying the planet. On what basis can you claim that they are not the ones behind a disinformation campaign?
The mere existence of these “gnome squads,” standing alone, does not a credible case make.
Democrats are so rude and crude. If they can’t hold up their end of the debate they get mean and nasty. Disgusting.
Z, “not true” isn’t exactly “debate,” and let us not forget who gave us the term “feminazi.” You Rightards deserve a taste of your own disgusting medicine.
I’ll tell you what I am. I’m a daughter of a WW2 Navy veteran, a sister of a Vietnam veteran, what are you? Nothing, you socialist pig. That’s what Democrats are..socialist pigs who think the government knows best. Cowards everyone. You didn’t fight for your country yet you insult the ones who did, you’re a coward.
zoo: “I’m a daughter of a WW2 Navy veteran, a sister of a Vietnam veteran, what are you? Nothing, you socialist pig.
I’m the son of a WWII Army-Air Force vet. Pretty much everyone our age was. BFD.
zoo: “That’s what Democrats are..socialist pigs who think the government knows best.
Vietnam was a for-profit elective war of empire, entered into under fraud, against which I actively and proudly protested. I obviously didn’t think “the government knows best” back then, now did I? Is your brother a “Democrat socialist pig”? He disagreed with me, and even picked up an M-1….
zoo: “You didn’t fight for your country yet you insult the ones who did, you’re a coward.”
Depends on how you define “fighting for my country.” I embrace Mark Twain’s definition of patriotism: “Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.”
The men who don the uniform give us a gift that we can never truly repay. Our duty to them is to not squander that gift, through putting them in harm’s way unless and until it becomes absolutely necessary, and in my lifetime, we have never had to fight a necessary war (what the Catholic Church calls “just war”). Yes, I was one of the protesters during ‘Nam. It was the right thing to do back then, and the verdict of history confirms it.
As St. Ronald of Reagan quipped, “democracies don’t start wars.” But oligarchical regimes often start them for profit, as Marine Major General Smedley Butler opined:
“I spent 33 years…being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism….
“I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street….
“In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….I had…a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions….I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…”
De omnibus dubitandum. Guess I wouldn’t have made a great Democratic “socialist pig.”
In other words..you chose to run. I never agreed with the war, I don’t agree with the one we have now. The men and women in the service have chose to see it through, they didn’t run. They are true Americans everyone. You voted for a president that cares more about illegals from south of the border then his own veterans. You’re all sick in the head.
Zoo: “In other words..you chose to run.
No. But that having been said, it takes courage to obey the Constitution when it conflicts with the orders of a superior. A level of courage manifested by Chelsea Manning, but not by your brother.
Z: “I never agreed with the war, I don’t agree with the one we have now.
But I, at least, did something about it in both cases.
Z: “You voted for a president that cares more about illegals from south of the border then his own veterans.
As if the Republicans cared any more. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/senate-gop-blocks-veterans-benefits-bill/
John “Bomb, Bomb Iran” McCain almost certainly would have gotten us into a third war. Besides, his choice of the dingbat Caribou Barbie as his VP proved that the guy who almost flunked out of the Naval Academy, who only got in because his Daddy was an Admiral, and who made his mark as a gigolo was less fit than Obama.
Coward. You and Bill Clinton make me sick. My brother is a man..you are not. Cowards don’t walk, they run, start running.
Your baby-killing brother was just following orders. So were the soldiers guarding the Nazi concentration camps.
Well come on all of you big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again,
He got himself in a terrible jam,
Way down yonder in Vietnam,
Put down your books and pick up a gun,
We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun
And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we’re all gonna die
Well come on generals let’s move fast,
Your big chance is come at last,
Gotta go out and get those reds
The only good commie is one that’s dead,
And you know that peace can only be won,
When you blow them all to kingdom come
And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we’re all gonna die
Well come on wall street don’t be slow,
Why man this is war go go go,
There’s plenty good money to be made
By supplying the army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb
They drop it on the Vietcong.
And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we’re all gonna die
Well come on mothers across the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam,
Come on fathers don’t hesitate,
Send your sons off before its too late,
Be the first one on your block,
To have your boy come home in a box
And its 1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,
The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we’re all gonna die
_______________
what was that name you used before?
Dissenter13. Something strange happened to my account, and I had to re-up.
more name calling no facts
The facts are out there….
what do you not understand about not true? that it is a fact?
I understand that there is no credible basis for your denial and further, that for you “born-again” Rightard ChristiaNazi hypocrites, that is your preferred state of affairs. Your Jesus was an inveterate socialist who mooched off the people and out of a common purse, but you hate socialism.
I don’t know where the “warming” comes from. The Earth is in a cooling off period.
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2vAyx5sYj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
But it is very thin ice, which will melt at the first opportunity. When measuring the effect, one looks at the total mass of the ice sheet.
It is very thick ice.
“It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.
The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/#ixzz2vO8jXhKp
Not according to the experts at NASA. The Daily Caller is about as reliable as the Weekly World News.
Are you talking about global warming or climate change? We’ve had climate change for millions of years. Global warming only since Al Gore invested $18, million dollars of his own money. The other article was from the Daily Mail. Guess they’re crap to..lol. Dumb.
The planet is warming, and by process of elimination, human activity is the cause. It is disrupting currents and jet streams, changing climate.
There is no evidence of global warming that’s why they changed it to climate change. There is evidence of climate change, it has been going on for millions of years even before mankind. We’re heading into another ice age and that is a natural occurance. People didn’t cause the last one either.
There is irrefutable evidence of an increase in the mean temperature of the planet. That is what global warming is.
“Climate change” is a euphemism devised by Republican wordsmith Frank Luntz to defraud the gullible and ignorant. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
That was in 2003 and it must not have worked for him. Luntz is just another tax loving politicion that needs to go.
Democrats and RINO`s have to go it`s plain and simple. TEA Party baby.
LOL!!!! I am fine with this i HATE chipoltie they have RICE in their burritos instead of beans !!! A burritio with rice inside it is not a good burritio
What? my avocados are doing better than ever. Bigger and better with more on the trees.
I understand that the Drug cartel`s are now harassing the Growers in Mexico and Central America and trying to take over the industry by taxing Forcefully and Harassing the growers. Is that also called Global Warming?