Executive order 14008

Messages
24
Saw this in the Hobbs News Sun (article below from the actual bill) the news paper stated that through this bill the federal gov. will be taking 30% of land in the united states and territorial waters and it doesn't matter if its private or not. The paper also quotes a farmer in Oklahoma stating that the Department of Interior told him directly "We are coming and we are taking 30% of your land, plant it in native grass and turn buffalo out on it so people in metropolitan areas can see what America was like" I'm sure a lot of this is speculation but just wanted yalls opinion.


Sec. 216. Conserving Our Nation's Lands and Waters. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit a report to the Task Force within 90 days of the date of this order recommending steps that the United States should take, working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.

(i) The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall, as appropriate, solicit input from State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders in identifying strategies that will encourage broad participation in the goal of conserving 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.

(ii) The report shall propose guidelines for determining whether lands and waters qualify for conservation, and it also shall establish mechanisms to measure progress toward the 30-percent goal. The Secretary of the Interior shall subsequently submit annual reports to the Task Force to monitor progress.
 
I didn't read where it said whether it's private or not. What I did read is that it said to determine if the land qualified for conservation and that it wanted to protect 30% of the nation's land.

I also read where agricultural partners would be on advisory on how to sequester extra carbon generated in the process of agricultural activity.

Maybe I just skimmed through it too fast because there was a lot of "lawyer mumbo jumbo" that really didn't say anything at all and was repetitive...
 
newmexicohunter:

I could not find the part about "a farmer in Oklahoma stating that the Department of Interior told him directly "We are coming and we are taking 30% of your land, plant it in native grass and turn buffalo out on it so people in metropolitan areas can see what America was like"

That seems like some really uninformed BS. Thanks for sharing!
 
you Would think that if you took all the National Forest , BLM, Wilderness, parks etc that you might have 30% of this country undeveloped.
 
more than that....

We can only generally characterize U.S. landownership. The Federal Government owns about 33 percent of the 2.3 billion acres; private individuals own 60 percent; State and public agencies and American Indians own the rest.
 
Wonder what's going to happen when people realize the climate change movement was a compmete waste of time because it wasn't even something to start with.
 
Again the part about the Oklahoma farmer was an excerpt form my local paper The Hobbs News Sun. Could be and likely is complete BS most things the News publishes are over exaggerated and BS.
 
Wonder what's going to happen when people realize the climate change movement was a compmete waste of time because it wasn't even something to start with.
I just took the family on a vacation from NM thru AZ,ID,WY,OR and CO and every day of driving there was smoke. It wasn’t like this when we were kids. In southern Oregon, I remember seeing MT Mclophlin was covered in snow even through the summer. Guess what, not anymore. So what is your theory on why it rains and snows less? Why is it that we are continuously breaking record temps? It reached 114 in Oregon when I was there which is not common.
 
I just took the family on a vacation from NM thru AZ,ID,WY,OR and CO and every day of driving there was smoke. It wasn’t like this when we were kids. In southern Oregon, I remember seeing MT Mclophlin was covered in snow even through the summer. Guess what, not anymore. So what is your theory on why it rains and snows less? Why is it that we are continuously breaking record temps? It reached 114 in Oregon when I was there which is not common.

Probably because it used to rain more, then snowed more, and now it's raining more again.

Go back in time since weather has been recorded and you'll see phenomena that wasn't common that happened before.
 
Probably because it used to rain more, then snowed more, and now it's raining more again.

Go back in time since weather has been recorded and you'll see phenomena that wasn't common that happened before.
Was that an actual response? I can’t tell if your being serious or sarcastic. I’ll just go ahead and say that one thing I love about our country is that it’s ok for us to disagree on certain things.
 
Was that an actual response? I can’t tell if your being serious or sarcastic. I’ll just go ahead and say that one thing I love about our country is that it’s ok for us to disagree on certain things.

Actual response. There is record of warming and cooling trends. Afterall, what caused ice sheets to advance and recede?

You don't have to go back very far. It was pretty dry back in 2018, wetter in 2019, 2020 we don't talk about.

When it's dry out west, back east is usually soggy. 20-something saw a polar vortex that hammered the east coast.
 
Actual response. There is record of warming and cooling trends. Afterall, what caused ice sheets to advance and

You don't have to go back very far. It was pretty dry back in 2018, wetter in 2019, 2020 we don't talk about.

When it's dry out west, back east is usually soggy. 20-something saw a polar vortex that hammered the east coast.

Remember both cooling and warming trends along with wetter and drier years is all associated with global warming. ????

41806D22-9140-4FB0-99F8-6BF9B691F66C.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Back in the day I actually did basic research on prehistoric climate. I am absolutely convinced that ...

1) Most people have difficulty discerning climate changes from weather changes. Please know that short-term changes (like on the human time scale) are weather. Long-term changes are climate. Roadrunner is good at this though.

2) Human memory is really crappy. Keep notes of real measurements or keep quiet, and your data is still only good for the location it references. RR is addressing this too.

3) The ice core work that I was involve with absolutely showed small regional changes on an annual basis: wet years vs dry years, warm years vs cold years. That is the weather we all experience..

4) That same work also showed huge changes over much longer time scales. Like regional average temperature changing 11 degrees over relatively short time periods and then slowly changing conditions for 5000 years, occurring several times over the past 100,000 years. That's regional climate change.

5) None of those changes could possibly have been caused by humans. The most stable climate has been while humans walked the land. Deo Gracias.

These are observations and measurements (facts) that really can't be disputed. Another thing that can't be disputed is that knuckleheads cherry pick good science (and conveniently ignore other good science work) to support their emotion-driven agendas.

My take for decades has been "Yes the climate is changing, it always has and that's normal. On the other hand, politicians, advocates, influencers, charlatan's and other criminals will always manipulate the emotionally weak by using perfectly normal occurrences to their own advantage." Be steady men.

Here's a couple of figures I've poached from more recent publications.

On this first one, left is colder (but not temperature), right is warmer. Top is recent, bottom is older. Pay attention to the scale on the y-axis.. The listed age is 1000's of years before present. How do we know that age? We counted annual layering, like tree rings, for the first 50,000 years. That's climate change. "Last glaciation" is like mastodons and saber toothed Mexican wolves. Shallower (later) than that is "Quest for Fire" stuff (google it).
CampCenturyd18O.JPG


This one shows the big short term changes a long time ago. Pay attention to the time axis.
Gripd18O.JPG
 
Last edited:
Was that an actual response? I can’t tell if your being serious or sarcastic. I’ll just go ahead and say that one thing I love about our country is that it’s ok for us to disagree on certain things.
In 1975 or 1976 the cover story of Time magazine was "the Coming Ice Age". Why because we were going through a cooling trend that lasted until early 80's.
As for fires less tree harvesting, more forests, both in areas that were historically logged. But between federal and state restrictions as well as fewer people willing to actually do hard work ( disclosure I sit in an air conditioned hospital all day) there is more old wood forests that have taken about 40-50 years to build up or more. This means more fires and hotter fires when big logs burn.
 
MLG has jumped officially on board:
"The governor says the executive order will create what's known as a “30 by 30” committee to evaluate conservation and environmental efforts of all New Mexico lands. Gov. Lujan Grisham says that the committee will work to conserving 30% of all land in New Mexico by 2030." --KRQE

I see the end of muti-use land designation, what about you?
 
With all the libs moving in this state is looking more and more like cali every day.
Seems like they are set on preservation not conservation. Problem is that all that fuel piled up in the forest burns and the fires have fuel in every direction.
 
Mostly everyone is spot on. The world goes through cycles. Places that used to be tropical, are now desert. The biggest drop in glaciers happened almost 15,000 years ago. Was that global warming? No, the glaciers built back up and are now decreasing again. It is a trend that has occurred for millions of years, not just the last century. But, liberals have to have something to scare everyone.
 
MLG has jumped officially on board:
"The governor says the executive order will create what's known as a “30 by 30” committee to evaluate conservation and environmental efforts of all New Mexico lands. Gov. Lujan Grisham says that the committee will work to conserving 30% of all land in New Mexico by 2030." --KRQE

I see the end of muti-use land designation, what about you?

I see this as being dead-ended as most EO's are. KLG assumes she is gov'r indefinite.
 
Mostly everyone is spot on. The world goes through cycles. Places that used to be tropical, are now desert. The biggest drop in glaciers happened almost 15,000 years ago. Was that global warming? No, the glaciers built back up and are now decreasing again. It is a trend that has occurred for millions of years, not just the last century. But, liberals have to have something to scare everyone.

I don't think it's even been that long.
 
Back in the day I actually did basic research on prehistoric climate. I am absolutely convinced that ...

1) Most people have difficulty discerning climate changes from weather changes. Please know that short-term changes (like on the human time scale) are weather. Long-term changes are climate. Roadrunner is good at this though.

2) Human memory is really crappy. Keep notes of real measurements or keep quiet, and your data is still only good for the location it references. RR is addressing this too.

3) The ice core work that I was involve with absolutely showed small regional changes on an annual basis: wet years vs dry years, warm years vs cold years. That is the weather we all experience..

4) That same work also showed huge changes over much longer time scales. Like regional average temperature changing 11 degrees over relatively short time periods and then slowly changing conditions for 5000 years, occurring several times over the past 100,000 years. That's regional climate change.

5) None of those changes could possibly have been caused by humans. The most stable climate has been while humans walked the land. Deo Gracias.

These are observations and measurements (facts) that really can't be disputed. Another thing that can't be disputed is that knuckleheads cherry pick good science (and conveniently ignore other good science work) to support their emotion-driven agendas.

My take for decades has been "Yes the climate is changing, it always has and that's normal. On the other hand, politicians, advocates, influencers, charlatan's and other criminals will always manipulate the emotionally weak by using perfectly normal occurrences to their own advantage." Be steady men.

Here's a couple of figures I've poached from more recent publications.

On this first one, left is colder (but not temperature), right is warmer. Top is recent, bottom is older. Pay attention to the scale on the y-axis.. The listed age is 1000's of years before present. How do we know that age? We counted annual layering, like tree rings, for the first 50,000 years. That's climate change. "Last glaciation" is like mastodons and saber toothed Mexican wolves. Shallower (later) than that is "Quest for Fire" stuff (google it).
View attachment 47276

This one shows the big short term changes a long time ago. Pay attention to the time axis.
View attachment 47275
Good post, although I myself am a fan of plate tectonics as the end-all. What value is the x-axis on the first graph?
 
Last edited:
What value is the x-axis on the first graph?
Thanks for asking. The X-axis in that figure is "delta-18O" in per mil, stable oxygen isotope ratios (same as the Y-axis in the second chart). The d18O of precipitation reflects the ocean surface temperature from which it was evaporated. So d18O=-45 is from cold oceans, and d18O=-30 is from warm oceans. In short time frames, stable water isotopes can point to where individual storms come from (in NM that would be cold North Pacific vs equatorial Pacific or Gulf of Mexico). In the ice core data charted that figure the annual fluctuations get leveled out and the data reflect annual average sea surface temperatures. There are hypotheses (which are supported with the spatial distribution of specific plankton fossils) that the Gulf Stream switched direction frequently during the "last glaciation". FWIW, the ice cores record maybe 100k years of data, most plate tectonics models don't bother with anything more recent than a few million years old.
 
Thanks for asking. The X-axis in that figure is "delta-18O" in per mil, stable oxygen isotope ratios (same as the Y-axis in the second chart). The d18O of precipitation reflects the ocean surface temperature from which it was evaporated. So d18O=-45 is from cold oceans, and d18O=-30 is from warm oceans. In short time frames, stable water isotopes can point to where individual storms come from (in NM that would be cold North Pacific vs equatorial Pacific or Gulf of Mexico). In the ice core data charted that figure the annual fluctuations get leveled out and the data reflect annual average sea surface temperatures. There are hypotheses (which are supported with the spatial distribution of specific plankton fossils) that the Gulf Stream switched direction frequently during the "last glaciation". FWIW, the ice cores record maybe 100k years of data, most plate tectonics models don't bother with anything more recent than a few million years old.

As long as today's conditions apply directly to yesterday's conditions. The inherent problem with the guessing game on aging the earth is nobody knows the true conditions of yesterday.

What makes the least amount of sense is it took billions of years to get to 1952, and then over the last 70 years, catastrophic changes have been implemented that reflect millions of years of SLOW change. Nevermind massive volcanic eruptions during that SLOW timeframe would have had an impact ten fold than humans ever could have.

Science used today to guess the date on things is just that - today's science with today's data with no long standing data over the ages.

Everything is based on assumptions and very misguided at that...
 

New Mexico Guides & Outfitters

H & A Outfitters

Private and public land hunts since 1992 for elk, mule deer, sheep, pronghorn, black Bear & lion hunts.

505 Outfitters

Public and private land big game hunts. Rifle, muzzleloader and archery hunts available. Free Draw Application Service!

Sierra Blanca Outfitters

Offering a wide array of hunt opportunities and putting clients in prime position to bag a trophy.

Urge 2 Hunt

Hunts in New Mexico on private ranches and remote public land in the top units. Elk vouchers available.

Mangas Outfitters

Landowner tags available! Hunt big bulls and bucks. Any season and multiple hunt units to choose from.

Back
Top Bottom