All Francis inherited was a modest manor called Marks, a property called Woolwich Marsh (near the Woolwich Armory tube stop, I think), and a few dubious leases. Together these properties brought him £30o per annum, which was plenty of money for an ordinary person, but a pittance for a courtier and a mockery compared to his eldest brother Nicholas's £6,000.
And then there were the debts, far greater than any of the late Lord Keeper's sons had imagined. They hastened to protect their own legacies from the creditors and fell into a furious wrangle. Nicholas and Nathaniel opposed Anthony and Lady Bacon. Edward the Amiable seems to have kept out of it. Poor Francis had no stake.
Nathaniel claimed that Pinner Park in Middlesex ought to have been left to him, not Anthony. Anthony laid claim to a lease at Redbourne (near St. Albans) which Nicholas considered his. They fought bitterly and at length, both sides writing frequent letters of complaint to uncle William, Lord Burghley, who must have had the most prodigious patience. (I will blog about the mind-boggling range of his correspondence later.) Jardine & Stewart phrase his reponses beautifully: "[He] subsequently produced from their discussions, and from consultations with Anthony, a list of contested articles with his own preferred resolutions." The list was undoubtedly cogent and the resolutions equitable. Both were ignored.
The elder brothers were far from unified, often contradicting one another. Nathaniel wrote, "where brethren do fall out the dislikings between them are more hardly appeased than those between strangers." True, indeed. The delays and bitterness were increased by hostility between Nicholas and Lady Bacon. He alleged that she had taken goods to which she was not entitled. The brothers threatened to take their step-mother to court, which distressed Lord Burghley, who was married to Lady Bacon's sister.
The legal matters were eventually settled, presumably without the drastic measure of hauling a lady into court. Anthony ended up with the manor at Redbourne, where he often stayed in later years. But the rift between the oldest and youngest sons of Sir Nicholas was never healed. Nicholas and Nathaniel, while never particularly active at Court or on a national scale, became powerful, influential men, who never did anything to help their extraordinary youngest brother at any time in his complicated life. A source of potential comfort and support was denied Francis at the outset of his adult life by a poorly written condition in his father's will.


text:
UN Warns "Climate Apartheid" by 2030, though $100 Billion per Year would Help
Eric Worrall / June 27, 2019
Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image
"Sombre speeches by government officials at regular conferences are not leading to meaningful action."
UN expert condemns failure to address impact of climate change on poverty
GENEVA (25 June 2019) – Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.
"Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger," said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, in a report released today.
"Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction," Alston said. "It could push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work."
Even the unrealistic best-case scenario of 1.5°C of warming by 2100 will see extreme temperatures in many regions and leave disadvantaged populations with food insecurity, lost incomes, and worse health. Many will have to choose between starvation and migration.
"Perversely, while people in poverty are responsible for just a fraction of global emissions, they will bear the brunt of climate change, and have the least capacity to protect themselves," Alston said. "We risk a 'climate apartheid' scenario where the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."
Climate change has immense, but largely neglected, implications for human rights. The rights to life, food, housing, and water will be dramatically affected. But equally importantly will be the impact on democracy, as governments struggle to cope with the consequences and to persuade their people to accept the major social and economic transformations required. "In such a setting, civil and political rights will be highly vulnerable," the Special Rapporteur said.
"Most human rights bodies have barely begun to grapple with what climate change portends for human rights, and it remains one on a long laundry list of 'issues', despite the extraordinarily short time to avoid catastrophic consequences," Alston said. "As a full-blown crisis that threatens the human rights of vast numbers of people bears down, the usual piecemeal, issue-by-issue human rights methodology is woefully insufficient."
Sombre speeches by government officials at regular conferences are not leading to meaningful action. "States have marched past every scientific warning and threshold, and what was once considered catastrophic warming now seems like a best-case scenario," Alston said. "Even today, too many countries are taking short-sighted steps in the wrong direction."
States are failing to meet even their current inadequate commitments to reduce carbon emissions and provide climate financing, while continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry with $5.2 trillion per year.
"Maintaining the current course is a recipe for economic catastrophe," Alston said. "Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fully compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions."
This transition will require robust policies at the local level to support displaced workers and ensure quality jobs. "A robust social safety net will be the best response to the unavoidable harms that climate change will bring," Alston said. "This crisis should be a catalyst for states to fulfil long ignored and overlooked economic and social rights, including to social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter, and decent work."
Although some have turned to the private sector for solutions, an overreliance on for-profit efforts would nearly guarantee massive human rights violations, with the wealthy catered to and the poorest left behind. "If climate change is used to justify business-friendly policies and widespread privatisation, exploitation of natural resources and global warming may be accelerated rather than prevented," Alston said.
"There is no shortage of alarm bells ringing over climate change, and an increase in biblical-level extreme weather events appear to be finally piercing through the noise, misinformation, and complacency, but these positive signs are no reason for contentment," Alston said. "A reckoning with the scale of the change that is needed is just the first step."
Mr. Philip Alston (Australia) took up his functions as the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in June 2014. As a Special Rapporteur, he is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
Follow the Special Rapporteur on Twitter @Alston_UNSR and Facebook at www.facebook.com/AlstonUNSR
For more information and media requests, please contact Bassam Khawaja (+1 646 886 7211 / bassam.khawaja@nyu.edu) or Patricia Varela (+41 22 928 9234 / pvarela@ohchr.org)
For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org
Follow news related to the UN's independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts
Source: UN OHCHR Website
The section on climate finance is entertaining;
Hundreds of billions of dollars or more will need to be mobilized to avert human suffering and losses in the trillions. The commitment by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 is "only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C." It is also insufficient for adaptation needs—which in developing countries are expected to total between $140 and 300 billion annually by 2025/30, and between $280 and $500 billion a year by 2050. According to one analysis of existing figures, estimated assistance is lower than reported, grant-based assistance lags far behind loans, and only a small fraction goes to least developed countries.
Source: Same link as above, p14-15
Everyone chip in, we've only got to raise $100 billion for this year's payment…
June 27, 2019 in Climate cash, United Nations.
FT: Low Interest Rates are an Opportunity to Spend Big on Renewable Energy
British Police Admit Electric Vehicles are Useless for Police Work
The Atlantic: Investment Bankers Will Save Us from Climate Change
← Is a great iron fertilization experiment already underway?
Coal Subsidies and Jake Tapper's Climate Emergency Meltdown… Lions and Tigers and Bears!!! →
107 thoughts on "UN Warns "Climate Apartheid" by 2030, though $100 Billion per Year would Help"
"Thousands of bureaucrats in third world countries need a new Mercedes " is the translation of most UN appeals for funding.
R Shearer says:
Also, won't the chicks be hotter? Hotter chicks and a new Mercedes and the UN still complains.
Henning Nielsen says:
Already ten years ago, there was reportedly a lack of hot chicks in Copenhagen, you know, that event when the climate was saved…again, only not quite. That darned eternally nearly terminal patient, the climate, threatens to die on us every year.
kenji says:
The difference between 'the church' and the UN ? More of your tithes actually make it to the POOR if you give $$ to your church. There aren't enough Jim and Tammy Faye Bakers in all of history that compare to government inefficiency and corruption. A tiny drop in an ocean of government GREED.
new Mercedes? Try a new Gulfstream G650ER
Flight Level says:
Now you're talking 😉 Who needs Benz and Twin-Cessna's, we're fighting climate poverty here !
*Sadly true* How to take corruption to ever new levels.
Walter Sobchak says:
Either that or a fleet of technicals with new machine guns and lots of ammo.
Roger Surf says:
"Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert."
He has got it wrong!
"Climate change mitigation will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.
Wally says:
No mention of the outrageous & incredibly stupid Third World birth rates which is one of the leading factors in poverty.
We're so "racist" that it's the Euro-white majority countries that billions of Third Worlders want into.
The UN is merely a Communist front. "Global warning", "climate change", or whatever they're calling it this month is just another camel's nose into the tent … the entire camel is sure to follow.
tom0mason says:
… ncredibly stupid Third World birth rates which is one of the leading factors in poverty.
Locally a high birth rate in a poor country is the only pension the old have. So it make good sense to have lots of children in a country were child mortality and where mortality generally is high.
The key is installing reliable fossil fueled electricity. When that happens and the opportunity to live more healthily, safely and wealthier, then plan when to have children, and and the birth rates will naturally fall.
As China has found out it does not take much to make a real difference but installing reliable energy is the key. It is easier in the long run than trying to enforce "one child" families, and the knock-on effects it has for all the abandoned older generations.
Gosh "Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fully compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions."
They made another mistake! What's wrong with these guys?
"Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are not compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions."
I think its time for the UN to pack its bags and disappear somewhere!
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/
TeaPartyGeezer says:
Off topic, but thought WUWT readers may be interested in this tidbit …
"@Michael_E_Mann's account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy."
This is probably the result of the Twitter jihad he's been calling on Dr Judith Curry after they testified before Congress the other day. Despicable behavior from a despicable Mann.
Shoot! That's wrong. I was looking at a fake account for Mann.
BallBounces says:
A new Mercedes and room for a pony…
Johann Wundersamer says:
Tom, their Mercedes is bigger than yours:
https://www.google.com/search?q=African+novelist+my+Mercedes+is+bigger+than+yours&oq=African+novelist+my+Mercedes+is+bigger+than+yours+&aqs=chrome.
Len Werner says:
Stunning–a projection of '1.5 degrees C of warming by 2100' and 'wealthy pay to escape overheating' in the same wail. I've personally experienced -110F with wind chill when collecting drill samples at the top of a mountain in the Cassiar open pit when an Arctic front was moving over, and hiked down into Coyote Gulch in the Glen Canyon NRA in summer at +110F, and survived both while not being wealthy–with normal-Yukon-attire boots, parka and gloves in one extreme and a bottle of water in the other.
And they wonder why nobody sees the need for urgent action?? How crazy can this fraudulent grasping-for-other-peoples'-money get?
Clyde Spencer says:
Len,
You said, "… boots, parka and gloves in one extreme and a bottle of water in the other." I understand that some Europeans are going the sans clothes route too. 🙂
Ah, Paris in the springtime–and I'm missing it, darn. Incidentally, it must be a fair bit more humid along the Seine than it is in the Arabian Desert; has anyone heard how the survival of traditional Muslim female attire is doing in that heat? As I remember what the job of the bottle of water was when climbing back up out of Coyote Gulch, wearing a black tent has to be the most incredible torture. They have my sympathies.
In Grenada, Spain today. A Bit warm but it brings out the best of the very pretty young ladies. Almaria, Spain last week on the top optional Mediterranean beach. Life is really nice. Bring on the heat.
Dave Fair says:
Only a raving socialist ideologue could believe any of this B.S.
If the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, GB, Europe (All Western Developed Countries) were to suddenly stop emitting Carbon Dioxide, the Atmospheric Concentration would still continue to rise beacuse the Largest Emitters were given a Blank Check to continue business as usual and are on course to double their output through 2035 and beyond
Lawrence Ayres says:
And if all those countries stopped funding the UN it would wither on the vine and disappear, unremarked and not missed at all.
Perhaps we COULD pony up a few billion with the caveat that it is to purchase what could become eventual controlling interest in their country. Unless, in the unlikely event that there is no climate emergency requiring the expenditure, they can pay it back.
How much do we pay the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston?
Should we stop supporting the whole UN circus? Human rights as practiced by Colonel Gaddafi or Robert Mugabe?
Paul Penrose says:
According to the document:
"Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity."
But he must work for someone. It would be interesting to find out who. My guess is a green NGO.
Robert of Ottawa says:
Give us the money, or children die.
GeoNC says:
As a lawyer might say, assumes facts not in evidence. If the UN were shut down tomorrow it would be an apocalypse for a lot of people needing to find real jobs.
Kick the UN out of the country and stop payments to them. While we're at it, stop foreign aid to anyone who doesn't bow down and kiss our big ol' hairy butt.
Jim Kress says:
From the Dictionary:
1. (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population.
2. any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.
The use of the term "climate apartheid" is hyperbole at its worst. It is yet another step toward violent extremism by the Left.
The use of "apartheid" is designed to evoke memories of diversity (i.e. color judgments) including racism. Ironically, it was competing factions of blacks a la Hutu/Tutsi, including the winning faction lynching their competitors, that was a first-order forcing of apartheid.
a_scientist says:
"States are failing to meet even their current inadequate commitments to reduce carbon emissions and provide climate financing, while continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry with $5.2 trillion per year."
This subsidy sounds rather large (5-6%) compared to say the world GDP.
Any source for this whopper? The IMF. The actual subsidy is more realistically one tenth that.
To get to trillions, they are counting future damages from global warming. And we know these are vastly exaggerated, models, and never consider off-setting benefits from the use of fossil fuels.
James Clarke says:
There is no subsidy. The definition of a government subsidy requires the government to grant money to an industry, business or individual. The government does not grant money from tax receipts to the oil companies. On the contrary, the oil companies are the largest contributors to US tax revenues.
The twisted meaning which Mr. Alston gives to the word 'subsidy' tells you all you need to know about this article. When someone arbitrarily changes the meaning of words, their words become meaningless. This is a propaganda piece that has no place in any policy discussion or thoughtful discourse on the subject of climate change. Mr. Alston is not an honest broker, and his words are not trustworthy.
For the US, that's true James, but some other countries may indeed subsidize some of their fossil fuel industries. I'm guessing that they consider any nationalized industries as "fully subsidized".
Mohatdebos says:
IMF considers building roads paid for by taxes on gasoline a subsidy.
Petit_Barde says:
This is exactly what the UN is causing by perpetrating catastrophic actions against a non existent AGW problem :
– World wide impoverishment and famines.
Absolutely. It's not global warming or climate change that's the problem – far from it.
The real problem is climate change doom mongering that is causing governments to squander trillions of dollars incompetently trying to solve a non-existent problem.
The hypocrisy is breath-taking. These morons want to make cheap and abundant energy impossible. And who suffers most from expensive and unreliable energy? The poor.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Singapore says:
I have spent the past month in Malaysia. It is amazing how much benefit reaches the poor when energy is cheap. Gasoline is fifty cents a litre. Everything is cheaper as a result – moving and working and access is influenced by the cost of energy.
Subsidizing energy may be the cheapest way of uplifting the poor. Perhaps some research is in order on the cost-benefit.
The cost of using the biggest highways is high. The cost of some tolls is equal to a tank of gas for a small car ($12). That's for the rich. Motorcycles pass freely.
Very interesting contrast with Europe where the State must pay for so much if the poor are to benefit.
"Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction," Alston said"
"UN expert"; that is, an expert at nothing.
"Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty"; more doomstering without evidence. Inventing over the top calamities is pure calumny.
Hugs says:
Yes, the impacts of the draconian CC mitigation policies are greatest on the people who are not well-off. Policies threaten democracy and human rights, that is also true.
So they got it partly right.
..and then put a policy in place that pays the vast majority of countries to increase their emissions
damp says:
"biblical-level extreme weather events." Chapter and verse, please?
Yeah, that whopper made me laugh too.
What? You want them to open the Bible and read it?
Oh, you are brave to even suggest such a thing 🙂
Dogs and cats living together! Lighting! Thunder! Maybe hailstones! Gigantic swarms of mammatus clouds!
According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C). – Space.com
What this means is that if the global mean surface air temperature rises 1.5C to 16.4C (a +1/5 rise in mean temp) it will become (wait for it!) + 61.52 Fahrenheit. Sounds fairly habitable to me.
Does anyone besides me see the flaw in this paranoid and delusional nonsense being presented to the public? Anyone? Bueller?
Okay, then – the UN is the equivalent of card sharps at a casino. First you see your money, then you don't, and you have no idea where it went, or how it left you. This is nothing but another scam by a bunch of con artists who want YOUR money for themselves. Just do the search for the conversion and let the software show them for the scammers they are.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the 1.5C is above pre-industrial levels and so would mean that we are already .9c on the way there leaving .6 c by 2100
John F. Hultquist says:
What is this: (a +1/5 rise in mean temp) ?
Also, perhaps you should use the Kelvin scale (K) with a true Zero point.
The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However, zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy of the other temperature.
http://onlinestatbook.com/2/introduction/levels_of_measurement.html
Mr. says:
The poorest peoples in the world in busted-arse countries have never had, nor ever looked like getting, "social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter and decent work" from their successive Animal Farm governments.
So CAGW will just mean 'business as usual' for these poor b@stards.
The UN jumped the ass a long time ago.
Over the ass, through the ouroboros, and no longer viable. If we adopt UN ethics, it could be planned and redistributed for social progress and to mitigate "climate apartheid". It would be unconscionable not to do it for the unplanned children.
Rich Lambert says:
The UN leaders could show the world how serious the problems is by cutting their wages to no more that 110% of the average wages of the world's population.
Pieter Folkens says:
It is axiomatic to say that climate change impacts those living in poverty. Just look at the Great Famine of 1315-13-17 and the subsequent challenges of the Little Ice Age when a third of Europe's population (mostly poor) died due to Climate Change.
The UN is cesspool of socialist corruption and evil. Trump should order them out of the US and their building destroyed.
Bob Hoye says:
Defunding the UN–yes.
Tearing down the black tower–never thought of it.
They could convert it into housing for the homeless then it could serve a useful purpose
"tens of millions will be impoverished, "…..what are they talking about?
..and we paid the UN…and the UN paid them all to do this
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2018/2-carbonemissi.jpg
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/energysnapshots/GRAPHglobaldemand.png
https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bpco2-720×513.png
… if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished …
… and poverty kills many more millions than CAGW is likely to kill.
About 3.5 million people, mainly women and children, die each year from respiratory illness due to harmful indoor air pollution from wood and biomass cookstoves. That's more than double the annual deaths attributed either to malaria (1.2 million) or to HIV/AIDS (1.5 million). (See related blog: "Cookstove Smoke is 'Largest Environmental Threat.'") In the past, international health and energy authorities looked to kerosene as a cleaner alternative, but the World Bank report pointed out that recent scientific study confirms that kerosene can emit troubling amounts of health-damaging pollutants, while posing a major burn and poisoning risk. For tracking progress in the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, the report recommended that kerosene cookstoves be considered a low level of basic access; more preferable are alternatives such as biogas, liquid petroleum gas (propane), electricity, and natural gas. link
Preventing access to cheap energy, when such is easily available is tantamount to genocide.
The CAGW activists can't name any of the supposed victims of climate change but the people who die because of energy poverty, and having to burn dung to cook with, those people have names and families.
Cheap electricity provided by coal will save many more lives than the pollution it produces will take. For example, the air pollution in Beijing is pretty epic but the life expectancy in China has increased a lot. link
"Climate change alarmism threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction"…
There, fixed.
As most countries turn a blind eye to CAGW the shrill of the UN gets louder and more apocalyptic. Why aren't the Greta Thunbergs, Al Gores, schoolchildren,and politicians of the world demanding China reduce their emissions and stop building coal fired plants at the rate of one a day in other countries? Because then there would be no one to pay their "climate reparations" and renewable build out to the non industrialized and chosen (by the UN) countries. Which begs the question….. how much of the "climate funds" given to the UN already have actually been spent on renewables in third world countries so far?
Switch it to 'Climate Nazi' and they've got it nailed.
Of course, they would have to be looking in the mirror.
icisil says:
"States have marched past every scientific warning and threshold, and what was once considered catastrophic warming now seems like a best-case scenario…"
They're really cranking up the hyperbole. If catastrophic is best case, what's worse case?
Super-exponential anthropomorphic catastrophic.
Be afraid; be very afraid.
[Oh, and by the way, Send more money because too many are dying by inhaling smoke from their fires inside closed dwellings due to lack of affordable energy.]
The world tipping over and Guam staying put
DocSiders says:
The biggest threat to democracy, freedom, prosperity and human rights today is not Climate Change. It is Climate Change Fraud.
F1nn says:
"""The biggest threat to democracy, freedom, ……. etc """ is United Nations.
J Mac says:
The enormity of the grasping greed is UNbelievable!…
Herbert says:
One hundred billion a year. Each year going forward.
This has been called "a very small figure"by Christiana Figueres.
I thought the Special Report on 1.5C last October was nominating $122 trillion being needed from private and public sources by centuries end.
It is difficult to keep a straight face when figures in the trillions are being loosely bandied about.
A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking real money.(h/t Everett Dirksen).
Perhaps the UN should contact GoFundMe.
What's the next value above a trillion? Or do we just through our hands up and give up at that point?
Thomas Englert says:
If we mine the "gold asteroid", it has quadrillions in gold, platinum, and other metals. Problem solved! /s
HotScot says:
No problem peoples.
The UK is riding to the aid of the climate destitute as the utterly insane Theresa May has pledged to impoverish our country to save the planet.
I mean, the UK produces as much as 1% or so of global emissions so persuading mother nature by giving her £1Tn is bound to have an impact on all those destitute African and Chinese peasants.
Easy when you have OP's money to spend.
A great speech, but he failed to mention how $100 Billion was going to safe them.
What is his plan for this money, and how will it achieve this objective?
CD in Wisconsin says:
"..Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert…"
The climate scare is a quest or pretext for political power, money and control. Because it involves the usurpation of political power (or more of it) over the people of the world in pursuit of an end, I submit that it is the climate scare narrative itself that is a threat to human rights. Power corrupts and oppresses. The more govts invoke an excuse for additional political power, the greater their opportunities for oppression. The risk is being created to subordinate human rights and freedom to a climate scare doctrine of highly questionable scientific credibility.
Furthermore, the climate scare narrative condemns the poor to eternal poverty in that it precludes allowing for economic development which would enable the poor to be lifted up and out of poverty. They are thus also subordinating human prosperity to climate scare doctrine.
Seeing the U.N. bureaucratic bozos get things bass ackwards is disgusting. I may have to skip dinner tonight.
DMA says:
So this guy tells us the required change will be very costly and demand much sacrifice to save the poor. AOC tells us not to sweat the cost because we will all have good jobs and make more money. I think they both think they are right but have not stopped to actually think about the processes they are demanding or the problem they claim to be solving. Their messages, although opposite and mutually exclusive, are intended to motivate by using feelings instead of facts which they both find in very short supply.
M__ S__ says:
The world is ending . . .
. . . send money.
Gary Pearse says:
UN Special Provocateur Alston has basically listed much of the blight that will befall us all under a global gov centred in Europe. Please Mr President, defund this undisguised, anti American, anti free enterprise, anti freedom Trojan Horse.
These UN leeches can't believe America takes this abuse. Privately they must laugh at the inside joke that America is funding its own dismantling. They have everybody else (except a few Eastern European countries in the bag whose arms are easy to twist) and their entire job is to take down America. Com'on you must get it.
amirlach says:
"only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C."
Which failed model are they basing this 2 degrees C of warming on? And what failed economic model are they basing rising poverty levels on?
Global poverty is in rapid decline because of carbon based energy. So is population growth. Moar please!
From the article: "There is no shortage of alarm bells ringing over climate change,"
Isn't that the truth!
And not a one of those alarms has every panned out. One false alarm after another about humans tampering with the Earth's weather and climate.
As the planet Earth cools, one wonders what planet these alarmists are living on, when they keep predicting catastrophic warming. They look more and more divorced from reality as time goes along. I wonder if they realize this?
If the UN is concerned about bringing poor people out of poverty they ought to build those people some fossil fuel or nuclear power plants instead of trying to foist windmills off on them.
Affordable energy is what brings people out of poverty. Windmills and solar cannot meet this need, because they are much too expensive to be practical.
Fighting climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, leaving tens of millions impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger. Fighting climate change is already undoing the last 50 years of progress.
Fixed it for ya.
David L. Hagen says:
China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined
Over the past decade, the U.S. has decreased annual carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 800 million tons. This is by far the most of any country in the world, and is primarily a result of shifting coal-fired power to natural gas and renewables. The EU has also made significant strides, reducing its annual carbon dioxide emissions by 681 million tons.
These reductions paled in comparison to China's two billion ton per year increase in emissions,
In the Paris Accord, the UN gave China the right to INCREASE its CO2 emissions into 2030s. All CO2 taxes / donations are irrelevant in face of developing country growth that will continue until they reach a high standard of living like the EU and US.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#ed1fa4628c2b
WonkotheSane says:
From it's birth at the hands of Maurice Strong, CAGW has been designed as a means to get money into UN hands. Perhaps it's a sign of desperation that they're being so obvious about it.
71 Million were displaced by wars last year alone and the UN is worrying about tens of millions of displacements by 2030. Nice priority organization by the UN … oh wait I wonder which will give the UN more money to play with.
A bit off topic….
I am watching the Democrat primary candidate debate on TV… and switching back and forth with an old Stargate SG-1 episode, when the 'debate' becomes too surrealistic.
And it just hit me:
I'm not sure which 'show' is further from reality!
Robber says:
Still the case is presented by the UN and the IPCC based on projections that 1.5C of warming could be catastrophic under some scenarios. But the fact is that the world has already warmed by 1.0C since pre-industrial times. so all the kerfuffle is about the disaster that a mere 0.5C of further warming might cause. But 0.5C doesn't sound as scary as 1.5C. When will this madness stop?
So, we're 1C into this 1.5C catastrophe? Wow, no wonder I see so many mutant frogs, fish swimming backward, cyclones and tornadoes dancing down the main street, sea levels rising 1 foot per week (Thanks Al), the sky turning blue, and nobody noticing that it's all going to Heck!
The more rabid the Warmistas and associated politicos become, the more we notice them frothing at the mouth.
"Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction. . . "
Just what role does this doofus think that fossil fuel consumption might have had in the "50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction?"
Our cry on deaf ears makes no difference.
wadesworld says:
pseudo-intellectual says:
The commitment by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 is "only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C."
"ONLY A FRACTION" of what is needed- oh, that's rich.
My only concern is what if they give up the insane raving…
RoHa says:
$100 Billion per Year certainly would help. Send it to me. I promise it will be put to good use.
I've heard that comment before, that States subsidise fossil fuel industry by trillions of dollars. But I don't get where this figure comes from. Are these people actually claiming that governments pay money to private oil companies to pump oil and gas out of the ground? Anybody got any answers to this?
"I've heard that comment before, that States subsidise fossil fuel industry by trillions of dollars. But I don't get where this figure comes from. Are these people actually claiming that governments pay money to private oil companies to pump oil and gas out of the ground?"
The oil companies get tax breaks, not payments from government. Alarmists imply that the government pays the oil companies, but what really happens is the oil companies get to keep a little bit more of the profits they make by using the tax breaks. The money is generated by the oil compaines and they pay some in taxes and get to keep some because of tax breaks.
The taxpayer, at least in America, does not subsidize the oil companies with direct cash payments.
OTOH, governments and taxpayers DO pay direct subsidies to windmill and solar farms. Paying the subsidies to the windmill and solar farms is the only way they are economically viable. Without direct government payments to windmill and solar industries these industries would collapse. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Rod Evans says:
Maybe we should ask all the international organisations that are concerned about the world's poor to relocate their plush offices in places like New York, Paris, London Geneva Rome and so on, and set up their well funded activities in the poor countries they focus on. Those countries would directly benefit from the economic input that move would provide.
Let us relocate the UN to say Liberia, a natural home for such an organisation. Maybe the World Bank to Zimbabwe where money with plenty of zero's (was) normal. I am sure this progressive idea will win favour with the socialist leaders of the various institutions. Maybe FIFA can transfer its HQ to one of the hot poor middle eastern countries, where football world cups could be played every year instead of the four year as now. We all know how valuable world cup venue selection is, and the ME seems to be an ideal location…
Pass me the step ladder… 🙂
Robert Kernodle says:
"Climate Apartheid" is a ridiculous phrase, and this alone discredits anything else associated with it.
When did climate have anything to do with racial segregation. My question to the users of this phrase — Distort definitions much?
Here, allow me to introduce some more ridiculous phrases:
Climate atheism
Climate constipation
Climate prostitution
Climate deficiency
Climate rape
Climate indigestion
Climate anemia
Climate terrorism
Feel free to add your own.
You left out Climate Reparations which is what the Paris Agreement started already.
Steve O says:
"A robust social safety net will be the best response to the unavoidable harms that climate change will bring," Alston said. "This crisis should be a catalyst for states to fulfil long ignored and overlooked economic and social rights, including to social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter, and decent work."
— What about reliable access to electricity? Insisting on renewable energy technologies works against reliable access to electricity, which impairs social security, food security, healthcare, and opportunities for employment. The fact that the UN promotes renewable energy for poor countries who can't afford the waste of resources and the mindless virtue-signalling it represents tells you all you need to know.
NC Coder says:
Do these people even listen to themselves? Do they believe this stuff or do they believe we are supremely stupid? They're politicians though, and this is what they do; they tell us what their goal is by claiming what will happen if they don't get their way.
What angers me the most, is the masses seemingly forgetting such golden oldies as "glaciers will be gone and snow will have been a thing of the past by 2012." How do the general populous have such short attention spans with attendant memory loss that allows these people to continue? This whole idea should have been laughed out of existence by everybody, but it hasn't. How did this happen?
Thingadonta says:
I think it's the best advertisement to not do anything.
Who knew it would come to this in the decline of institutions.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/075d64995a13b57d9aa9bf47e92802fb/tumblr_pb70dwbVA21rmu963o1_400.gif
Coeur de Lion says:
What they need is lots of coal fired power stations.
old construction worker says:
' UN Warns…… though $100 Billion per Year would Help' (let me finish the headline) line the pockets of corrupt politicians.
""Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger," said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, …"
Poorer nations are pushed into maintaining their poverty by the stupidity of the evil bureaucrats at the UN and World Bank as they force poorer nations to use UNSUSTAINABLE and UNRELIABLE methods of generating electricity instead of using fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.
Jeff Price says:
The UN is without a doubt the most corrupt organization in the world today. I wouldn't give them a penny of your money.
chris_zzz says:
It doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is always the same: PAY US HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY!!!
'climate apartheid' is the next "flak fire" disposing the strongholds of "UN Special Rapporteurs".
"States are failing to [ ] provide climate financing"
is the confession of what "UN Special Rapporteurs" desparatly search for: climate financing.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Obamacare Returns as Galvanizing Issue After Ginsburg Death, Barrett Nomination
By Albi Robinson
Democrats are intent on utilizing the A.C.A. to realize benefit in Senate races throughout the nation, particularly towards weak Republican incumbents like Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Martha McSally in Arizona and Cory Gardner in Colorado — who has run an advert promising to guard pre-existing circumstances regardless that he voted in 2017 to repeal the Inexpensive Care Act. Shield Our Care, a liberal advocacy group targeted on preserving the well being regulation, is getting ready to run tv adverts in all three incumbents' states warning that they need "to hurry a justice onto the courtroom who will repeal our well being care," after digital adverts this week.Comparable adverts are operating towards Republican senators in tighter-than-expected races in Alaska, Iowa, Georgia, Montana, South Carolina and Texas. Successful each the White Home and the Senate, the place Republicans at present maintain a three-seat majority, may permit Democrats to repair the regulation in a manner that may assist reserve it from being overturned by the Supreme Court docket, by reinstating a monetary penalty for individuals who go with out medical health insurance. The crux of the authorized case is that when Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, the regulation's requirement that the majority Individuals have insurance coverage grew to become unconstitutional, and that with out that mandate the remainder of the regulation couldn't stand.The problem of the well being regulation apart, Joel White, a Republican strategist, stated he thought the courtroom emptiness would truly assist Republicans in tight Senate races "the place their base is on the lookout for a purpose to be excited," and in conservative states like Georgia and Montana, "by motivating partisans." Extra essential, he stated, the emptiness may provoke evangelical voters who could in any other case have been reluctant to vote for Mr. Trump.James DiPaolo, an impartial voter in Jacksonville, Fla., stated he had been contemplating voting for Mr. Biden — regardless that he dislikes the Inexpensive Care Act's requirement that insurance policy supply complete protection, which might make them dearer — as a result of Mr. Trump "says issues which can be atrocious." However the courtroom emptiness he stated, has modified his calculation as a result of he's a religious Catholic and "huge fan" of Choose Barrett."Her being a girl of religion, that's essential to me," Mr. DiPaolo, 36, stated of Choose Barrett, who can be Catholic.Mr. DiPaolo did level to 1 piece of the well being regulation that he strongly helps: its protections for individuals with pre-existing circumstances. His grandfather had diabetes, as does his father, he stated, including, "I'm hoping it skips me however I don't know, so I feel protections for which can be key."He didn't join a vote for Mr. Trump with the potential of shedding these protections."I don't see him eliminating that," he stated.
Biogen's Alzheimer's Drug Poses a Dilemma for the F.D.A.
Albi Robinson - June 7, 2021 0
The Meals and Drug Administration is on the verge of asserting one in every of its most contentious selections in years: the destiny of...
We Could All Use a Health Coach
Courtney Hamilton, a publicist in Los Angeles, is a first-rate instance of somebody who has benefited from a well being coach. She had suffered...
For Small Gyms, Handling the Pandemic Meant Expanding
This text is a part of Proudly owning the Future, a collection on how small companies throughout the nation have been affected by the...
New York Turns to Smart Thermometers for Disease Detection in Schools
After which, in fact, there are the inevitable privateness considerations. Kinsa emphasizes that each one knowledge supplied to the town shall be aggregated and...
Blinded by Brighter Headlights? It's Not Your Imagination.
Lights have shrunk over time, and "any given depth seems brighter if it's emitted by a smaller obvious floor versus a bigger one," stated...
Red Knots in Steepest Decline in Years, Threatening the Species' Survival
The variety of purple knots visiting the Delaware Bay seashores throughout this spring's northbound migration unexpectedly dropped to its lowest since tallies started virtually...


text:
Talk:Dirty Harry
1 Model 25?
2 John Milius Model 29
3 It was a Model 29(maybe)
4 Rifle as Evidence
5 Harry and the 4th Amendment
6 .44 Magnum/.41 Magnum
7 M57 vs. M29
8 Arisaka paratrooper rifle
9 Scorpio Killer
10 Arisaka suppressor
11 6 shots or 5?
12 Crew visible?
13 Additional
14 Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.
Model 25?
I've read that the gun actually was a Model 25 in .45 Colt. The substitution for the M29 was lack of availability of a M29 and the easy availability of blank cartridges in .45 Colt (which were probably widely used in Colt Peacemakers in Westerns).
I heard it was a Model 57 in .41 caliber, but it makes more sense for it to be a Model 25, because .45 Colt blanks were very common thanks to the ridiculous amount of westerns made during that time. - Gunmaster45
It can't be a model 25. It looks completely different near the forcing cone and cylinder lock-up as well. Gunmaster45, you heard correctly. It is a model 57 in 41 Magnum. Dead ringer except for calibre and the muzzle size difference will not be noticed between those two calibers on screen.
John Milius supplied the Model 29 for the film then both Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied them. The ones from Ellis Mercantile and Stembridge Gun Rentals were .44 Magnums but were re-chambered to use 5 in 1 blanks. - Steve
From "guns and ammo" november 2006; Garry James: "my friend writer/director/gun enthusiast John Milius told me he originally intended for Eastwood to carry a 4- inch model 29 in "dirty harry,but model 29s of any stripe were in such short supply at the time that they couldn't find enough 4-inchers but did manage to scrounge up three 6 1/2 - inch 29s, so that's what they went with".Rafa (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
The HD screencaps on both the main page and posted below show '44 MAGNUM' on the gun - I think it's irrefutable that Model 29s were used in the film at this point. StanTheMan (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
John Milius Model 29
What is known is that after Magnum Force was finished Milius was presented with a Model 29 by Clint Eastwood and Warner Brothers. It has a small plaque on the grip. I've seen numerous photos of it and a few years ago it was on display at the NRA's museum in Virgina. Does anyone know if that Model 29 was used in either movie or was it just a gift? --Jcordell 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a Model 29(maybe)
It has also been written that two Model 29's were used in the filming of Dirty Harry. The Smith & Wesson company historian, Roy Jinks, has stated that the company was approached by Warner Brothers before filming had begun with a request for specimens. Evidently no Model 29's could be found to purchase. The Model 29 was something of a "niche" gun in the fifties and sixties and S&W did not produce large numbers of the 44 magnum revolver.
There had not been a production run for awhile and they had become rather scarce on the market. The factory did have parts on hand and were able to put together two models for the production. However all they had were 6.5 inch barrels so that's what the film went with.
John Milius has stated in the past that when he was doing fine tuning on the script he gave Inspector Callahan a Model 29 with a 4 inch barrel. Which makes sense since since it would be more practical for a cop to carry the 4" version. Of course practical in this case in more a matter of schemantics.
As others have said though it's hard to know what really occurred. The makers of Dirty Harry had no way of knowing that they were involved with pop culture history and nobody thought to keep accurate records about the props. So we continue to have fun debating all the possible models used by Inspector Callahan.And while your bringing it geel free to identify yourself like I just did. --Jcordell 14:59, 16 April 2009
I would also bring to the table that in 1971 gun accuracy was not high priority. Revolvers shooting 123 rounds without ever reloading. Even today 100% gun accuracy isn't achievable. You must remember it's hollywood. However if you start reading printed books and that kind of thing on the topic you will see that it was indeed a model 57. Also saying that "Harry" said it is a 44 magnum doesn't make it so. Just because a character in a movie claims it to be a something definately doesn't make it so. Now on Magnum Force and his later movies I'm sure it was a model 29 but for Dirty Harry (the movie of this page) it definately is a model 57. If you really want to I can go get some book references for you and post them here. However that is going to take some time going through my library but I will. Myth busting when it comes to be guns is what I like. So bring it. Potentpoefie
Okay. It's supposed to be a Model 29 in the movie.Even if it was actually a Model 57 that was used. And I have also read so called printed books which was where I got the info about Roy Jinks and the Model 29's being used. So once again I'm going to change it.Also I get the impression that almost everyone here is accepting of the fact that it might have been a Model 57, but don't really care. However I would like to see your references.Please post them. --Jcordell 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, Jcordell I don't know if I should thank you are swear at you. I had to go through 17 year's worth of gun magazines. However I knew I read about it before. But I finally found the articles. The thank you part comes in because I took the time and finally organized those 17 year's worth of gun magazine. So without even going to online references here you go. Man Magnum March 1998 - One-Stop Shot by Keith Dyer Man Magnum November 1998 - The Movie Guns of Clint Eastwood by Paul Scarlata Man Magnum July 2006 - 44 Magnum - The First Fifty Years by Keith Dyer So now this model 29 is turning into a model 57 again and if it doesn't bother you so much then I guess it's fine. Potentpoefie
Yeah okay. I'm calling a truce. I'm leaving it to MoviePropMaster2008 to decide what he wants to do. He's basically the webmaster and it's his site. Peace my brother. --Jcordell 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well no peace to be made. Nobody declared war. Like I said. Thanks. It was an experience going through those magazines. Funny how what is "tactical/practical" has changed over the years. Potentpoefie
I took the snap below and brightened the image to better see the magnum markings. It looks like 44 Magnum to me. --Predator20 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
looks like 44 Magnum to me
I'm pretty sure that this is a .44 Magnum bore, because I've seen a Model 29 up close and remember it looking just like this. I've never seen a Model 25, but some pictures I've seen online suggest it doesn't look like this.
My guess is that they used the Model 25 mostly for the firing scenes, the Model 29 whenever the gun wasn't fired. -MT2008
In the last screenshot it clearly says ".44 magnum" down the side of the barrel. --cool-breeze (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (EST)
Rifle as Evidence
The reason the rifle was not viable evidence is because it was "fruit of the poisonous tree." Harry had no warrant to search the stadium so evidence pulled from the scene is not admissible in court. this is the reason stated in the movie BUT any halfway decent cop and district attorney would make it a legal search due to it being "fresh pursuit" not to mention the exigent circumstance of said pursuit. moreover scorpio could only get the protection of that statute if he were a legal resident of the stadium and i am pretty sure he wouldn't be recognized as such legally. so in reality it wouldn't happen quite like that, but the entire movie was an exercise of complaint at the systems apparent apathy towards victims rights and total obsession with criminal rights. so the whole point is rendered moot. just felt like sharing.
I concur. the statement on the picture is just careless. However, the doctor said that the groundskeeper let him live there. That was the easy way they explained he was legally living there. Contract living or not, the implication that his living space is consensual with the owners or caretakers is legally enough to make it a protected area which requires a warranted search. Also, there was no "hot pursuit" or fresh pursuit. they were led to the stadium through a tip. They didn't see him run there and they didn't follow him in. Just my two cents 69.23.137.224 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Your point is quite valid, I only brought it up as it was a topic in my Substantive Law class. The fresh pursuit part isn't so much about actively chasing the suspect into the area, but the small amount of time that has passed in the pursuit, bolstered by the exigent circumstances (which is a trump card). The trouble with the groundskeeper giving permission to live there is that he (in all probability) has no legal standing to grant that permission. Since Scorpio is effectively a squatter and the "search" was more or less the rifle being in plain view during the course of a lawful arrest (if I remember correctly) the point is again moot. But I do agree with you on a few levels, I just merely wanted to point out that the topic in question is more of a legal quagmire than the cut and dry "you were bad, Harry" that the movie states or the cut and dry "they have the rifle there just use it as evidence" that others wish were the case. Just adding a few more cents, I think I'm up to a nickel now. =P
Scorpio would've had the expectation of privacy, since he considered it his home. But the key thing to consider here it not how the courts would consider this TODAY, but how they would've considered this in 1971. The Warren era had just handed down Gideon, Miranda and Escobedo less than a decade prior, so there's a good chance the courts would've sided with the defendant on this one. --Funkychinaman (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
I've altered the statement on the picture to refelct the fact that the rifle could have been used as evidence and the trial legally brought to court. - Maxman 0:14 8 September 2013 (EST)
Harry and the 4th Amendment
I can't speak for 1971 but in 2009 if I was in a similar situation a couple phone calls and I would have a very quick answer from the on-call prosecutor. Also I would call my superior and make sure that I surrounded the stadium with officers and locked it down. I've gotten search warrants before and a couple times it only took about 90 minutes. Plus there would be a very good chance that the PA (prosecutor) would give you the green light to enter based on the exigent circumstances.
Also I imagine that you could contact the owner or owners and get permission to search fairly quickly. Especially considering the circumstances. Most people are essentially good and want to help the police. At least in the U.S.A. But if they showed that the system was somewhat flexible and that other folks also wanted to save the girl than Harry would lose his Lone Wolf status. That would have changed the whole movie and fun would that be?
I own all the Dirty Harry movies and I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, but they are works of fiction and they play fast and loose with the law in order to make a political/social point. Your observations are dead on. --Jcordell 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You said it though when you said, you can't speak for 1971. It was a different time. You can't compare today with 1971. Heck, I used to ride my motorcycle with a Springfield 03 rifle slung on my back (not in a case) down the 101 freeway on the way to a target shoot and nobody cared. This was back in the 1970s IN California (!?) Times surely have changed. MoviePropMaster2008 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the politics of the film was in response to a lot of the changes brought about by the Warren court. I'm sure many people may have resented that these rulings swung in favor of the accused at the cost of the police. (Gideon, Miranda, Mapp, Escobedo, etc) But since then, with more conservative courts, some of that has been rolled back or relaxed, like Miranda. --Funkychinaman 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In the spring of 1981 I was thirteen and in 7th grade. Near the end of the school year my P.E. teacher let us have a "Fun Day" which included many activities to include archery. One of my friends brought his Barnett Crossbow and a quiver full of bolts onto the bus and walked with it into our school. The only thing he had to do was leave it with the P.E. teacher until classtime. But at the end of the day he rode the bus home with the crossbow and bolts and nobody even went "eek". That was just 29 years ago. Times do change don't they? --Jcordell 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
When I would walk to school in My Homestate of North Carolina, I would see men huntin' (My house was on a dirt road) in the open where everybody could see them and Me and My Friends just thought it was normal, but when I moved out of the country and into the city, with My Grandpa's old Springfield M1903A3 Rifle slung over My shoulder and a 1911A1 pistol tucked into the waist of my pants , driving an old 1950's pickup truck with half the paint worn off. Now imagine driving to New York in 1979 wearing the old uniform your father wore during the Korean War with a pair suspenders and a hand-me-down bandana soaked in blood and sweet. I saw things I didn't even think existed. That was the strangest moment in My Life. Now everbody used to seeing that stuff. The small town I lived near has been abandoned and torn down to make place for a tourist trap and mini mall. I searched for the America I grew up in and could not find it. - Kilgore 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above regarding the rifle being admissible, Scorpio was living in the Kezar Stadium under the consent of the groundskeeper, but the groundskeeper, in all likelyhood, does not have the right to grant that kind of permission, which would make Scorpio a squatter in the eyes of the law and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment. - Maxman 02:56 8 September 2013 (EST)
.44 Magnum/.41 Magnum
From what I remember reading in gun mags of the time, when they contacted Smith & Wesson a week before production was due to start no M29's where being produced at that time. They where in the middle of a run of M57 .41 Magnums, which are identical appart from the differance in Calibur. They sent them a pair of these with an advisory note not to film the muzzle until some .44's could be sourced to replace them.
This means that i was fooled, i always believed that it was a Model 29, god this isn't a good week for me.--Dillinger 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, they were actual Model 29s, in .44 Magnum. Bob Sauer had two made from parts in the Smith and Wesson factory. If you look carefully, the barrel actually says .44 MAGNUM. - Maxman 03:04 8 September 2013
M57 vs. M29
It's a moot point what the real model was. In the movie it's identified as a S&W 44 magnum which means it's a Model 29. So I'm going to take the liberty of changing it back to being identified as a Model 29, but with all the info still included. Anyway the company historian has stated that the production company did use a couple Model 29's that the factory put together from spare parts. --Jcordell 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The barrels actually say .44 MAGNUM, so I'd say that's pretty conclusive. - Maxman 03:07 8 September 2013
Arisaka paratrooper rifle
I understand that sporterising a rare firearm negates its value as a collector's item, but is it possible that this particular Arisaka could remain valuable due to its appearance in this film?
That exact specimen would probably get a large amount of money at auction as long as there was provenance. --Jcordell 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Only as a movie memorabilia, not as a collector gun. There is a difference. MoviePropMaster2008 21:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask: what happens to movie prop guns when they're worn out? (I presume they get worn out.) Are they destroyed? Are they still considered firearms and regulated as such? Can they be converted back into regular firearms? Are they sold as collector's items? I'm sure the hero guns will go to some museum or something, but what of the rest? --Funkychinaman 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
They are usually sold off to other prop houses/armories or gun collectors. Many of Stembridge's guns were sold to collectors in other states (back in 1999) when the Anti gun Atty General Bill Lockyer (D) was dead set on trying to nail Stembridge. The 1990s were a DARK TIME for gun rights. Dan Shea brokered a lot of the Title II sales to other buyers outside of California. You are right about the pendulum swinging back, but a lot of damage has been done and I don't see how many of the laws which really hurt armorers / gun owners can be turned back at the state level. We'll see. MoviePropMaster2008 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was curious about the appearance of the takedown Arisaka in film, as it seems to have been a rather rare specimen compared to the scores of Type 38/Type 99 rifles brought back from the Second World War and the Korean War. Still, it appeared from time to time in movies, I remember Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey) used one in The Manchurian Candidate.
Scorpio Killer
I think the scorpio killer was supposed to be potrayed as a nazi or a racial socialist. He uses two of the most infamous nazi firearms in film, he had blonde hair and blue eyes, and finally he had a racial slur of african americans in his first death note.
Arisaka suppressor
What type of suppressor is the suppressor used on the Arisaka? I can't remember any suppressors being made for the Arisaka before WWII, or indeed if it was able to use any sort of suppressor. Also, it's called a 'paratrooper' rifle, were they ever actually used by Japanese paratroopers? Were there any Japanese paratroopers during WWII?
Actually in WWII the Japanese had two separate paratrooper forces. Both the Special Naval Landing Forces (Marines) and the Imperial Army Air Force developed their own paratroopers. Although like the German Fallschirmjäger they only jumped a few times early in the war and spent the rest of it fighting as infantry. As for the Type 2 Paratroop Rifle, it wasn't designed for a suppressor, so it would have to custom fitted. Pravda616 15:53 28/12/11
6 shots or 5?
In the orginal theatrical release, "Harry" fired 5 shots, not 6. The recent DVD added a sixth to the soundtrack. He fired 5 rounds single action and then cocked on the sixth. After not firing, he lowered the hammer, then cocked again which rotated the cylinder to a previously fired chamber, which enabled him to click on that empty chamber. The public is so dense that even Milius has given up arguing the point. --Sg688 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (EST)
Crew visible?
In the closeup of the Type 2's bolt handle, there are several reflections that almost look like crew or film equipment. - Maxman 1:07 8 September 2013 (EST)
Callahan shows the punk he had indeed fired six shots. He cocks the hammer, but due to continuity error, the alternate angle shows him pull the trigger in double action.
Only 6.5 inch barreled M29s were used.
I have seen numerous sources over the years state that 6.5 inch versions AND 8.3/8 versions were used in the movie. This is NOT correct. Only 6.5 versions were used.
I believe this rumour owes its existence to the football stadium scene where Harry chases down Scorpio onto the playing field and shoots him in the leg. The lens used to show Harry aiming the Model 29 at Scorpio distorts the perspective similar to a "fish eye" lens but not as severe. This has the effect of elongating the image of the Model 29.
However the easiest way to confirm the barrel length is to compare the length of the ramp base of the foresight blade to the gap between it and the front of the ejector shroud. The ramp base would barely fit into the gap once. If the 8.3/8 barrel was used it would fit in almost twice.
Just examine the gap difference on any profile of the two variations. Even with the distortion in the scene the proportions stay the same.
Um, this is a shot with a perspective so severe that Harry's right hand is about the size of his entire head, the gap would not stay the same size relative to the front sight base. Plus the front of the gun isn't even in focus so the front sight base is going to appear bigger than it actually is. Evil Tim (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
I concur with the above, this is hardly a good image to use as any reference let alone 'proof' and regardless this one instance is hardly a basis as to definitively state which particular gun (or not) was used for the entire film. That said, I've watched the film many times and there are other scenes where it looks like the longer barrel Model 29 is used, if however only briefly. I will grant the 6.5 inch version is clearly the predominant one used but you are one of the very few if only ones I've seen to state ONLY it was used. Bottom-line if what you're looking for is to remove the notation about how a 8 3/8" barreled Model 29 was used in the film I see no reason to do so with what's been given here. This coming from someone who is known to be a sticker for those kinds of details and is a revolver/S&W man himself. StanTheMan (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=Talk:Dirty_Harry&oldid=1228524"


Frontline Locksmith are experts in many vehicle services including Car Locksmith Bournemouth. Situations where you are locked out of your car or have lost your car keys can leave you in a panic and leave you feeling frustrates. Give Dave from Frontline Locksmith a ring and you can expect a quick and reliable job that will leave you feeling satisfied and your vehicle will be left safe and secure. Please call 07811363812 for proffessional and reliable Car Locksmith Bournemouth services.
Car Locksmith Bournemouth: Specialist Locksmith Services for your vehicle in Bournemouth and Surrounding Areas!
Security for your car or any vehicle is very important and we can supply you with vehicle keys and remote programming for the best protection availabe. For those frustrating situations where you have lost your keys or have been locked out your car, Frontline Locksmith have specialist equipment for any car are all non-destructive so there will be no damage to your car. We are careful with our Car Locksmith Bournemouth services and always aim to provice a quick and non disruptive for our customers.
Frontline Locksmith have 24/7 availability and are always happy to listen to any questions or concerns you have with your current security system. For Car Locksmith Bournemouth services and more locksmith speciality tasks you may have, please give Dave a call on 07811363812 or altenatively click here to use our contact form.


Have a business meeting in Bloomingdale on Tuesday, but need to catch a 6:20PM flight (ORD), how much time do I need to give myself?
Am going San Antonio for a business meeting in Oct 2012. Considering extend the stay. What to do in San Antonio and where to go nearby?
I need to get from LA to Oakland for business & have a 12 hour window to do so. Should I just fly or is there another option?
Where to business type women in salt lake city?


Putoline Chain & Engine Degreaser Spray has been especially developed for motorcycle use. Its unique fast acting formulation will remove heavy oil and grease from all areas including chains, sprockets, engines and frames. Easy & quick to use, suitable for all chrome, painted, rubber and plastic surfaces, water-soluble & leaves no residue.


text:
Over 40-year career, Holy Cross brother learned necessity of education about food, water
This story appears in the Q&As with Vinnie Rotondaro feature series. View the full series.
by Vinnie Rotondaro
Dave Andrews "grew up rural," but when it comes to food and water policy, the 70-year-old Holy Cross brother has practically seen it all. Andrews cut his teeth working at the local political level in 1970s upstate New York. He directed the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, an advocacy group dedicated to "the rural church, rural people and their communities." He was a senior adviser to the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations under the presidency of Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. For the past six years, he has served as a senior representative to Food & Water Watch, an influential Washington, D.C., consumer rights group that "works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable." All this from a man who "grew up rural."
Earlier this month, Andrews announced his retirement. NCR spoke with him about his life and career, what he's seen and learned over the years, and where he sees the fight for clean, accessible water and healthy food heading today.
NCR: Tell me about yourself. Where are you from?
Andrews: I'm from Massachusetts. Southeastern Massachusetts, near Providence, R.I. I'm from an unincorporated village. I grew up in Myricks. I grew up rural. We weren't farmers, but we had neighbors who were farmers, so I knew about rural landscapes, and I knew about the demographics and the tradition of rural life in America growing up in that setting.
When did you enter into religious life?
I entered the Congregation of Holy Cross right after high school in 1953. I'm a Holy Cross brother.
And when did you become the director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference?
I was director of NCRLC from 19...what? Well, for 13 years, up until 2008. But I started my rural life career in agricultural food policy right here where I live now, in a small town in upstate New York outside Albany. I started my rural life work with the North East Task Force for Food, Farm and Consumer Policy, which was operated under the New York State Assembly.
My mentor and co-worker at that time -- this was 1974 or '75 -- was Mabel Gil. She's the blood sister of Eileen Egan. I don't know if you know that name, Eileen Egan? She was a worker for Catholic Relief Services, and they give out an award every year, the Eileen Egan Award. She's pretty well known in church circles -- she's now deceased. But Mabel is 91 years old, and Mabel is still active. We keep in touch.
You also worked with the United Nations.
Yes, the United Nations was 2008-09. It was after the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and right when I first started working for Food & Water Watch. I was contacted by Miguel d'Escoto. He asked me to be a senior adviser on food policy and sustainability.
Was that the first time you started working on food and water issues at a global level?
No, with National Catholic Rural Life Conference I worked internationally.
So what do people need to know about food and water at a global level?
They need to know that our water resources are in peril. They're in danger internationally. We waste a lot of water. Increasingly, communities need water because of things like droughts, which are significant here in the U.S., in the Southwest particularly. They need to know that the food that we consume needs to be healthier and that we need to rely less on pesticides and herbicides and more on sustainable systems of production.
We need to make sure to find ways to get sustainable production of food so that more rather than fewer can eat. The food has to be healthy and nourishing. We have to spend more time looking at nutrition. Those are some of the facts of the food system that the public should be aware of globally.
What does the food and water situation look like in America?
The good news in America is that there's an increase in the consumption of organic production, of non-pesticide-use production methods. There's a growth in that, 20 percent every year. So that's good. But you still have the growth of rural demographics, people wanting to move to the countryside -- what we call "amenities seekers" -- people who are looking for a nice landscape, but in doing so use up good productive land for housing. We need to produce good food sustainably in a way that preserves rather than hurts our countryside.
Are the root causes of food and water problems the same in countries like America as they are in more impoverished nations?
They are. They're the same. It's population, migration; it's weather issues, climate change, climate adaptation, the impact of human activity on the climate. We need to look globally at these issues.
Have the issues changed at all over the years?
The issues haven't changed dramatically, but the language and the discussion about them has. In those early days, we talked about "alternative agriculture." We didn't talk about sustainable agriculture. We talked about organic as "alternative." So it was a different nomenclature.
And the language matters.
The language does matter because there are lots of people who want to co-opt the language of sustainability, and they want to call things sustainable that are not. So it does matter, and the nuance matters, and the context matters significantly.
What have you learned about politics over the past 40 years?
Well, that it's easy to be co-opted. There are lots of people who want to take the language of sustainability and use it for things that are not sustainable. Even within the halls of USDA, for example, you have these policies developed that claim to be sustainable -- in terms of the ingredients that go into products or how they're produced -- but they're much more willing to let industrialized systems of agriculture claim the mantle of sustainability when they're not sustainable. From the policy perspective, you have to know your issue and how to nuance it correctly. You have to be willing to help the public see the differences in the methods.
One of the things I've always been happy with is that I taught high school. That helped me shape my language so that I was understandable to a broader public. And that's important in this work because otherwise, people can people fooled. Especially by official organs of the government.
What have you learned about people?
I have learned that people really want to do the right thing. And if you tell them honestly and approach them directly, you'll find that people are basically good-hearted. They want to have healthy, nutritional food. They want to know the right things to eat and how to prepare them for their families. This is why the president's wife [Michelle Obama] has been so popular in her food policy focus, because she's helping educate the broader public. You see, the proliferation of more organic production around the country is because people want to do the right thing.
What can conscientious people do to help support a healthier system?
They can promote healthy food wherever they are, in whatever system they're in: in their schools, in their place of work, in their businesses. Increasingly, food service can become healthier and communities can become healthier if the consumer will foster that kind of system. And I believe that we can do a better job of talking to our leaders about what it is we really want. It gets down to people calling for a positive and healthy change and doing that wherever they are, including their local communities and their churches. If they do so, the change will come. And I see it increasingly coming, quite honestly.
[Vinnie Rotondaro is NCR national correspondent. His email address is vrotondaro@ncronline.org.]


text:
ARF Hires Nielsen's Donato as Chief Research Officer
In New York, The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) has appointed Nielsen's former CRO Paul Donato as Chief Research Officer. He will take up the position on October 1st.
Donato (pictured) was EVP and Chief Research Officer for Nielsen for more than a decade, responsible for overseeing retail, consumer, mobile and media measurement methodologies; and developing new technology-based methods including the integration of panel-based measurements with machine-generated data sets. Earlier, he co-founded WPP's Media Research business unit; served as CEO of Kantar Media; was Technical Officer for IBOPE Latin America; and led business units at Simmons and Audits and Surveys Worldwide.
Most recently, Donato founded media and market research firm Jatopond, providing consumer insights and supply chain research through satellite imagery, location sensors, and mobile tracking technology. He is a past Chairman of the ARF, and has also served as member of the Consumer Council for the World Economic Forum, and a member of the Singapore Economic Development Board. In addition, he has had more than ten patents awarded for using technology to measure human behavior.
His new position, which has been vacant since 2014, was previously held by advertising research luminaries such as Joel Rubinson, Joe Plummer, and Don Gloeckler. Scott McDonald, President and CEO of the ARF, comments: 'At a time when there are so many contentious and challenging research issues facing the advertising industry, and when ARF member needs are evolving at an exponential rate, few research leaders have the depth and breadth of Paul's experience or his track record. We are delighted to have the benefit of Paul's knowledge and I know our members will greatly appreciate his energy and guidance in setting a research agenda to address industry needs'.
Web site: www.thearf.org .


Yummy and delicious Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 for delivery anywhere in Noida, Ghaziabad, whipped cream and special toppings! Surprise your loved ones with this lip smacking delicacy!
Cake N Flower provides you with home delivery of Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 in Noida,Greater Noida, Just place the order online for Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 and we will deliver it the very same day.
You may order Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 for birthdays or you may order Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 for Cartoon Cake.
Yummy and delicious Barbie Doll Shape cake Design 07 for delivery anywhere in Noida, Delhi, wh..
Yummy and delicious Barbie Doll Shape Cake Design 03 for delivery anywhere in Noida, Ghaziabad, whip..
Yummy and delicious Barbie Doll Shape cake Design 5 for delivery anywhere in Noida, Delhi, whi..
Yummy and delicious Barbie Doll Shape cake Design 04 for delivery anywhere in Noida, Delhi, wh..


The moviegoing experience has been a part of Winnipeg culture since the 19th century. More than just a leisure activity, how and where Winnipeggers see movies can be a barometer for gauging local cultural and economic trends.
After spending most of the last year out of town on tour, bassist Ashley Au is ready for some home time.
Social change occurs at the intersection of talent and ability. The upcoming Justice for Errol Benefit Show, a showcase of bands coming together to support prison abolition, exemplifies this.
Within the mid 2010s, condo construction spiked in Winnipeg. Many different groups of consumers and different types of condos are behind this.
The Province of Manitoba released a new healthcare poll, but an expert says it's not representative, and some are concerned it constrains discussion.
Community engagement is a common theme that pops up throughout environmental studies and sciences professor Alan Diduck's career.
The University of Winnipeg has been adapting its campus to address the needs of gender non-conforming (GNC) individuals in the past few years. However, accessibility to gender-neutral washrooms is still an issue.
The political process is seemingly slipping away from policy and legislation and toward celebrity culture.


- If there was a bed here, that would be good.
- If he saw it, he wouldn't believe it.
- If there is bed here, that will be good.
- If he sees it, he won't believe it.
Seriously, I only heard the 2 statements in the past tense only. Please explain to me if I can use them in both present and past tense or they can only be used in the past tense only. To me, the 2 statements seem alright to me except that people tend to prefer to use it in the past tense. I don't know why??? Seriously, I only heard the 2 statements in the past tense only. Wonder if I can also use it in the present tense??? Please advise me how to use the "if" statements with the correct tense. Please also show me examples, that will be great. Thank you.
1) If Jack sees it, he won't believe it.
2) If Jack saw it, he wouldn't believe it.
Both of these are correct, and they mean very similar things.
1) is used when the speaker feels that the situation mentioned in the if-clause may really happen. From the speaker's point of view, there is a real chance that Jack will see it. This statement is about real future time.
2) is used when the speaker is only imagining that the situation mentioned in the if-clause happens. It doesn't matter if in the real world there is a chance that Jack will see it or not because the statement isn't about the real world. The speaker is only speculating about a situation that may or may not happen, and the speaker doesn't focus on whether it will happen or not. The speaker is just envisioning a fictitious situation in which Jack sees it. So it all takes place in an imagined world that is part of the speculation. This statement isn't about real future time. In a way, it's not about real time at all.
If I buy a lottery ticket, I might win the lottery. This is real possibility. I can say, "If I win the lottery, I will buy a new house".
If I don't buy a lottery ticket, I can't win the lottery, but I can still speculate about winning the lottery. I can say, "If I won the lottery, I would buy a new house".
There are many times when it doesn't matter whether you use the pattern in 1) or 2).
Hi CalifJim. Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. It surely helps to clear up my some of my misunderstandings regarding the tense used in a "if" statement. In conclusion, can I say that both the above "if" statements, be it in the past tense or present tense, both statements are valid and correct in the tense used. Am I right to say that I can use the above "if" statement in present tense or in past tense as both ways mean very similiar things. But one thing that puzzles me is that I hardly get to hear people use the above "if" statement in the present tense. Mostly people use the above "if" statement in the past tense. Why such a perference?? Why is this so??? Even though both ways mean very similar things, in what situation do I have to use each of them appropriately?? I hope you know what I mean. Please advise. Thank you very much.
Mostly people use the above "if" statement in the past tense. Why such a preference??
People like to speculate about matters in 'arm-chair philosopher' mode, holding ideas at arm's length, so to speak. The past tense is not used to indicate past time in these cases. Instead, it indicates a sort of remoteness from reality.
Suppose, instead, that you are explaining something that you already know to someone standing beside you. This is a situation that is immediately present, not remote.
Read my 'lottery' example again to get some idea of the differences.
I suppose there are more situations in life that require imagining something that we don't know for certain than there are situations where we state outcomes we are sure about. So most of the time when we say 'if', we are speculating about something, envisioning something, imagining something. The human mind is quite active when it comes to wondering (or worrying) about things that aren't necessarily likely to happen.
my wife lost her job?
you heard that your best friend had died?
you missed your flight to London?
we received a check for $20 million?
you were offered the job of your dreams?
everyone had guaranteed health care?
Thank you very nuch, CalifJim. Really appreciate your effort and time to explain to me. So, can I say that I can actually apply the present tense or the past tense in the "if" statement. Both ways are vaild and correct. The only difference is whether it is used in speculation or in the future sense. Am I right to say this?
spongebob123 Thank you very nuch, CalifJim. Really appreciate your effort and time to explain to me. So, can I say that I can actually apply the present tense or the past tense in the "if" statement. Both ways are vaild and correct. The only difference is whether it is used in speculation or in the future sense. Am I right to say this?
Yes, that's right. It seems to me, though, that people usually speculate more than they talk about the real future, so if you really can't decide which is better when you want to use an if statement, make a guess that it's speculation and use the pattern with the past tense and would.
Thanks CalifJim, really appreciate your help. You cleared up my confusion. Thanks for all the effort and time u gave me to explain it to me. Thanks again.


A personal high quality mailing list, professionally built and maintained with constant new quality leads, is by far the best way to acquire new customer and gain customer loyalty. We build an address database according to your instructions and search out new email addresses for you following the highest technical and legal criteria.
Recognising your advertisement is one of the most important factors for building trust, which later turns into customer loyalty. Your own personal mailing list can help you achieve this goal.
A personal newsletter is one of the most important factors in customer acquisition as well as customer loyalty. Personalising customer messages and communications on an ongoing basis is a very effective way of building a long lasting relationship with your customer, and in turn retaining them through each stage of the customer life cycle.
Through continuous communication with the recipient through your newsletter database you create a high recognisability which ultimately leads to trust. Through constant and tailored communications your products consciously and unconsciously remain present in the customer's mind, thus placing your offering in the best position when the consumer decides to make a purchase.


text:
Privacy Tradeoff
2. 4. 19 by Dan Robitzski
San Francisco Built a System to Track Homeless People
The system can coordinate help for the city's homeless, but requires a lot of personal data.
/ Future Society/ Data/ Homeless/ Privacy
Image by Pixabay/Victor Tangermann
San Francisco, unsurprisingly, has decided that the solution to the city's homelessness problem is to gather and analyze personal data.
Specifically, a program called ONE System is now gathering data about the approximately 7,500 homeless people in San Francisco so that the city can better coordinate its efforts to get people off the street. It's a program with noble aspirations, but some difficult-to-justify means — homeless participants will need to trade their private, personal data for the chance of receiving aid from the government, according to Bloomberg.
Since August, ONE System has helped around 70 homeless people get off the street, Bloomberg reports, and its creators hope it will halve the homeless population by 2022. To do so, the system, which Nevada-based tech startup BitFocus, Inc. developed for the city, collects data from 15 government agencies and also asks homeless participants to fill out a survey that asks about their daily routines, medical history, and other personal information that could be used to help them get appropriate help.
But the new system doesn't exactly erase the hurdles that homeless people already face — to get permanent housing in one of San Francisco's low-cost adult-supportive housing programs, homeless people must pass a background check that takes 45 days to complete and also often need to present a government-issued ID. On top of those systematic hurdles already facing homeless people, government employees will need to convince homeless people to participate in the program, even though some may have debilitating mental illnesses or be skeptical that the system's data won't make its way into the hands of the police.
So far, the data collected through ONE System has stayed out of law enforcement's hands and no one has tried to buy it, Chris Block, the director of coordinated entry for Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco, an organization contributing to the program, told Bloomberg. But there aren't any laws on the books that specifically protect the data the system collects or prevent it from being abused.
"There's a lot of privacy concerns," he said. "So far those issues haven't been significant, but that doesn't mean they won't come up in the future."
READ MORE: This App Wants to Track Every Homeless Person in San Francisco [Bloomberg]
More on technology and homelessness: In a Dystopian Move, the SPCA Is Using a Robot to Scare off Homeless People
A Virtual Phone Number Lets You Connect With Anyone While Keeping Your Real Number Private
Why You Should Consider Becoming a Data Analyst this Year—And How to Start
A Growing Number of Countries Tap Phone Data to Track COVID-19
Identity Theft Is a Real Threat. Luckily, Modern Tech Offers Real Solutions.
This Company Is Paying People $1,830 to Film Them Constantly
Beanie Bust
In Proof That Irony Is Dead, People are Trying to Make Beanie Babies NFTs
Wurdle
Guy Who Shamelessly Ripped Off Beloved Word Game Issues Apology
In Communist Meta
CEO Born in Soviet Russia Says Metaverse Is Just Like Communist Propaganda


Although everyone hoped it wouldn't be the case, we all knew that the consistent bite on big bluefin in local waters was going to come to an end. And while the bite may not be completely over, last weekend's windy conditions, coupled with this week's full moon, definitely have the bluefin at least temporarily off the bite. The good news is that we've still got good water conditions and tons of bait on our local banks, so the bite could come roaring back at any time.
As of Thursday, there are still some big bluefin being seen and caught by boats in both US and Mexican waters, but the fishing is far from being good. In other offshore fishing news, there are more yellowfin and yellowtail are showing up in the counts. Sauerfish Charters reported catching several quality yellows off kelp paddies on a recent trip. The Pacific Queen returned from a 1 1/2-day trip this week with 47 yellowtail, 23 yellowfin and 2 bluefin tuna.
This change to a more standard summer pattern should make for some more consistent fishing and will hopefully provide some more catch-able sized fish for the overnight and 1 1/2-day boats.
Private boaters looking to fish offshore this weekend are going to have to roll the dice and go look for fish. I spoke with Captain Gerry Mahieu of All Harbors Charters who fished offshore Tuesday and Wednesday this week. He reported fishing out of San Diego on Tuesday and only seeing one school of yellowfin the entire day in the southern zone. On Wednesday he launched out of Oceanside and covered most of the northern zone without seeing any fish before pulling into San Clemente Island and finding excellent calico bass fishing for his clients.
Sportboat anglers have two options this weekend. The first would be to jump on an overnight or 1 1/2-day trip out of San Diego in search of tuna and yellowtail. The other is to take an overnight boat out of LA or Orange County to fish yellowtail at San Clemente Island. The bite at San Clemente is the more consistent of these two options, but catching small to medium sized yellowtail, with a side of calicos and rockfish, isn't quite as exciting as catching a tuna. If you are looking to fish San Clemente, the Thunderbird out of Davey's Locker has been consistently catching fish.
Private boaters looking to fish a little closer to home can expect decent bass fishing along much of the coast and a shot at a yellowtail if they're lucky. I fished Palos Verdes on Monday evening and found very cold water on the lower end of the peninsula but warmer water at the northern end. We managed several dozen bass for our efforts and saw multiple big yellows that followed our hooked bass to the boat. Captain Jimmy Decker fished south of Long Beach the same day and reported ice cold water. In fact, he said that the water outside Long Beach was the coldest he'd seen it in the last two years. This cold water is caused by wind driven up-welling from our local canyons and the fact that it has returned after a two year absence is a pretty good indicator that el nino is on it's way out of Southern California.