Steven Frisch responds on Proposition 23

August 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Steven Frisch responds on Proposition 23

23 August 2010

George Rebane

On 20 August last, KVMR aired one of my bi-weekly commentaries ‘Is Prop23 Relevant to Nevada County?’ in which I argued 1) for the support of Proposition 23 to suspend CARB’s implementation of AB32 which is now California law, and 2) that the county’s Board of Supervisors should take a stand on the proposition. Steven Frisch, President of the Sierra Business Council and RR reader, delivered a KVMR commentary tonight advising opposition to Proposition 23. He kindly sent me a copy of the transcript of his commentary which is available here as received – Download Steven Frisch KVMR Prop 23 Commentary. Paul Emery, KVMR news director, is planning a discussion of this proposition between the three of us. The tentative schedule for its airing is 6:30pm on 1 September next.

Posted in Current Affairs, Nevada County

45 responses to “Steven Frisch responds on Proposition 23”

Scott Obermuller

23 August 2010

Steve won’t name the “pollutant” because it comes out of his own mouth and plants love the stuff as much as the cow leavings they are fertilized with. The same old game of trying to deceive while technically not saying anything out right untruthful. We were promised the children dying of asthma would decline dramatically when the O2 and the unburned hydrocarbons (smog) were reduced. Well, they were reduced and childhood asthma went up. A lot. Instead of admitting they were wrong, we get still more scare stories. He says Prop 23 is deceptive, but can not provide a single detail. His figures about the amount of venture capital don’t show how much is govt. money being poured in to shore up the bad investments already made. Hey Steve – how about all the money poured into “clean” energy like gasohol? Oops – that’s right, we don’t talk about that anymore. But the money poured into that rathole still counts as part of your figure of investment. Clean energy involves all kinds of things that aren’t that clean. Care to share with us where most of the batteries being made for the electric cars come from and why? Our dependence on foreign oil has absolutely nothing to do with AB32 or Prop23. It has only to do with how much oil we allow companies to produce domestically. We could be getting every drop of oil from our own country, but for various reasons, we don’t allow it. We could reduce our petroleum usage and still have our dependence on foreign oil go up. Yes, CO2 “contributes” to climate “change” – but the amount is clearly being over estimated and California can not do enough to make any measurable difference. Forced investments in “clean” energy have already been proven to be job and economy killers in Spain and Germany. Steve and his like-minded religious zealots don’t care about any of that. Just push forward with “green” proponents like our Governator, who commutes daily from SoCal to Sac in his private jet plane. That’s Steve’s hero. Or maybe another “green” hero like Algore, who has just one of his mansions running an electric bill 12 times the average American’s home. And of course, throw in Enron, even though that has nothing to do with this besides the fact that the same political party is behind both the Enron scandal and AB32. Is this the best you can come up with? I could do better and I’m against AB32.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

Steve Frisch is getting debunked very handily over at the FUE’s site. Seems he is being called a liar.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

Really Todd, no one called me a liar. You are so histrionic. I am respectfully rebutting and responding to critique over there if anyone is interested in reading.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

Don’t shoot the messenger. John Stoos and Greg Goodknight appear to be telling the truth.

LikeLike
Dixon Cruickshank

24 August 2010

I quotes I read at Russ’s were pretty deceptive and mostly false mumbo jumbo rhetoric

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

I am working today and will respond on an occasional basis later. I am committed to complying with George’s wishes and responding in a respectful manner and sticking to the issues rather than personalities. With all due respect to you Todd, I think Greg and John have been quite specific in their critiques, and I intend to respond to them in kind. I am hoping that if you have a specific issue you could state it specifically and I will respond in kind.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

My concerns with the anti 23 propaganda comments are being handled quite well by George, Russ Greg and John.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

Then perhaps you should refrain from trying to start a range war by using the l word. It is a violation of the terms of service. Not to mention that neither Greg not John have called me a liar. They have been quite civil.

LikeLike
George Rebane

24 August 2010

Gentlemen, if I may interject. Almost all of our dissertations and debates involve citing data and beliefs. No such presentation warrants calling the presenter a liar. If the data is wrong, cite different data that you believer to better/correct. If an offered belief/opinion is disabreeable, then show its disfunctionality. Refuting neither requires invoking ‘liar’.
If someone tells a falsehood about you personally, then one should be free to rebut as their spirits dictate, given the ‘shadow of the future’ you both wish to share.

LikeLike
Russ Steele

24 August 2010

I have posed a critique of Mr Frisch’s commentary at NC Media Watch. However, Mr. Frisch has declined to comment because the crowd is too rough to handle at NCMW, even though the NCMW is now moderated. I raised the issue of the cost of AB32. The LAO Study, which Mr. Frisch used to justify some of his commentary, pointed out that AB32 will cost businesses and taxpayers billions in fees and taxes. As George has pointed out numerous times we have never taxed our way to prosperity. If Mr Frisch has some data to the contrary, or some historical president were taxing business and citizens led to their prosperity, perhaps we can all reconsider our position on that issue. Until then, VOTE YESS on PROP 23 and save the citizens of this state billions.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

I have not called Mr. Frisch any names at all. I read the comments at the FUE’s blog regarding this subject. John Stoos and Greg Goodknight are doing a fine job of presenting the rebuttal to Frisch. I am no scientist but I do understand CO2 and the propaganda the anti 23 folks are putting out about it. The thread here is being respectful but some just have thin skins.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

Here is a direct quote from Steve Frisch over at the FUE’s blog on the topic of Prop 23.
“Ok, wait a minute–I am an avowed atheist. I am proud of it. I do not hate God, I do not believe in the idea of God.”
Why is he saying this?

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

I’m sorry Todd, I am reviewing the comments on Jeff’s blog right now and I don’t see where Greg or John, or anyone else called me a liar. Could you point it out for me?
I have been very happy with my discussions with John Stoos lately. I’m not sure if you noticed but we have found a number of things we agree on, including the nature of the Christian influence on the founding of our nation. Not exactly an issue you can work your way through if bombs are being thrown.
I would love to see us all start trying to establish a higher standard. I think Russ and George are kind of frustrated with the nature of the debate on their sites as well. It has to be tiring to moderate us clowns.
How about we all make a deal—no personal comments. Just a discussion of the issues, with attacking peoples motives, or insulting their intelligence? How about just a reasoned debate of the issues?
What part of what I have said in my commentary, posted above, do you dispute and why?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

My experience with liberals is summed up in a nutshell. They dish it out and then cry a river when they get some back. You have made quite a few attacks on me and others on a personal level and then when we even question your opinions you complain you are being personally attacked. Well, I would say I have been pretty patient but I have little patience for hypocrisy or crybabies. I favor 23, you don’t. I am in private business you are not. I am a Christian and you are an atheust. John Stoos is a saint for posting over at the FUE’s blog. Even John is attacked by the leftwing posters over there. I have few things in common with a liberal and after having to listen to their attacks over the years they have created the divide. My goal is to win elections for the issues and people I like and believe in. You are doing the same. War and politics are hell.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

Todd, now I just kind of feel sorry for you. Life is not a war, Todd. I once commented on The Union blog that there must be room in life for redemption. I hope you find it.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

24 August 2010

That of course should read WITHOUT attacking people’s motives etc…….
and now Todd, you get the last word…..

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

24 August 2010

I feel sorry for you too. Adios.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

Todd. One man’s lie is another man’s spin. It is clear that SBC’s choice of language is highly misleading (i.e. stating “pollutant” and meaning C02), but our system requires debate which inevitably involves getting as close to the “L-line” as possible without going over. So, is SBC’s piece “highly deceptive”…yes. As it gone far enough to be termed a lie???

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

25 August 2010

Yep.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

25 August 2010

First, CO2 has been deemed a pollutant by the EPA. You may not like it, or them, but they are the authority that determine what is a pollutant in this country. So when I label CO2 a pollutant, I am labeling it a pollutant as the EPA does. It is a pollutant in certain concentrations.
Second, I am not sure of the value of the rhetorical question. Asking the question rhetorically is the same as stating it as fact. It the same as saying “when did you stop beating your wife”. It forces one to say “hey I am not a liar”. Well I won’t say it because it plays into you hands, it is a tactic in sophomoric debating societies.
Homey don’t play that game.
I think we should try to go back to what George says he wants, a respectful blog.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

One man’s lie is another man’s spin.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

25 August 2010

Barry, didn’t Obama order the EPA to declare CO2 as some sort of bad gas? I think it was political because the Congress was unwilling to pass Cap and Tax so he did a end run around the law. The democrats then stopped the R’s from overturning the EPA. I would say you called it right.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

Todd, you are correct. Obama did order EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant. Liberal politics…it is all spin and propaganda.
These “environmental laws” are not about the environment…they are about control of the channels of production…plain and simple. If the government regulates carbon, they can regulate everyone’s life and create socialism (Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the government or state). It is the ultimate loss of freedom brought to you by liberals locally and nationally.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

25 August 2010

Actually Barry, to make the determination that CO2 is a pollutant there are mandatory finding that must be made. You are an attorney, you must know that. Obama cannot order that something be named a pollutant, the EPA can request that a legal finding be made that CO2 is a pollutant. If you wish to challenge the legal finding, challenge it.

LikeLike
D. King

25 August 2010

“It is a pollutant in certain concentrations.”
I guess the prehistoric world (before man) was
totally polluted.
http://tinyurl.com/265gpyf
Do explain where I’ve got it wrong Steve.
I love to see your superior science skills
on display.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

25 August 2010

Go here to see the complete conversation and context around the quote about atheism that Todd pulled from Mr. Pelline’s blog:
http://jeffpelline.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/pro-and-con-commentary-on-prop-23/#comment-10695
Here is my full comment:
“Ok, wait a minute–I am an avowed atheist. I am proud of it. I do not hate God, I do not believe in the idea of God. I respect Christianity, as I respect other religions. I recognize the Christian influence on my culture, and in many cases love it. Religious music (gospel) and religious art ( renaissance Italian) are some of my favorite cultural influences. Being an atheist does not mean one hates God.”
See this is why we can’t have a real discussion. If I call someone a liar I stoop to their level (and break the rules). If I ignore it, the charge stands and the cumulative impact of it is that people who do not speak truthfully are empowered.
The rules of civilized society are tell the truth, do not quote people out of context.

LikeLike
D. King

25 August 2010

“It is a pollutant in certain concentrations.”
I guess the prehistoric world (before man) was
totally polluted.
http://tinyurl.com/265gpyf
Do explain where I’ve got it wrong Steve.
I love to see your superior science skills
on display.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

Regulation…Obama directs…EPA publishes proposed regs…public comment…you have a regulation. It was a done deal when Obama directed. Because something is a law (created by fallible man), does not make it right and does not make it the Truth.
These “environmental laws” are not about the environment…they are about control of the channels of production…plain and simple. If the government regulates carbon, they can regulate everyone’s life and create socialism (Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the government or state). It is the ultimate loss of freedom brought to you by liberals locally and nationally.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

25 August 2010

So Barry how do you propose we insure we have clean air and water without some form of regulation ?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

25 August 2010

Here is what Texas is doing regarding the Obama EPA power grab.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1

LikeLike
Paul Emery

25 August 2010

I’m amazed you’d quote that rag

LikeLike
D. King

25 August 2010

Yes on prop 23 gives you lower energy bills.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

Steve…I was actually defending you. Todd says lie…you say that you are within the bounds of EPA regulation. I am saying EPA regulation is misguided with an underlying motive.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

25 August 2010

Paul, why would you say the Times is a rag?
Barry, did I say lie? I can’t recall.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

25 August 2010

I recommend D.King go live in the Jurassic period and tell me how much he likes it.

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

25 August 2010

Ah Barry…perhaps I misunderstood. We moderates give people the benefit of the doubt.

LikeLike
D. King

25 August 2010

“I recommend D.King go live in the Jurassic period and tell me how much he likes it.”
Oh no, not with acidic oceans…wait a tic!
Shellfish formed with co2 levels 10 times
higher than today. But how can that be?
Steve’s website friends tell us they can’t
form shells.
Who do you believe?

LikeLike
Paul Emery

25 August 2010

Todd
Todd
Because I’m too lazy to write my own copy I took this from Wikipedia, not an inpeachable source but in this case I believe it to be true. You remember the moonies? They still own it,
“The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon.\ Bo Hi Pak, Moon’s chief aide, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[2] In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying “That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda.”[3] In 2002 Moon said: “The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”[4]

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

25 August 2010

What does any of that have to do with the story about Texas. Do you read the Nation? How about the Christian Science Monitor? There are many publications that report the news and do it well. I think you should broaden your horizons and not be so intolerant.

LikeLike
Barry Pruett

25 August 2010

Todd…you may not have. Too many comments to read thoroughly. Sorry if I put owrds in your mouth.
Steve…moderate? Come on man…

LikeLike
Paul Emery

25 August 2010

When you have a headline that reads
“Lone Star state won’t participate in Obama’s lawless policy”
You know it;s not a newspaper

LikeLike
Dixon Cruickshank

25 August 2010

Actually Barry, to make the determination that CO2 is a pollutant there are mandatory finding that must be made. You are an attorney, you must know that. Obama cannot order that something be named a pollutant, the EPA can request that a legal finding be made that CO2 is a pollutant. If you wish to challenge the legal finding, challenge it.
Oh please spare me – the quote was – “either you pass my Cap & Trade or I will have the EPA enforce it”, all the information they relied on has been subsequently debunked to boot. Steve you using these lame talking points is why your credibility ranking is somewhere between Obama’s and Biden’s but they are talking to a much bigger and dumber audience – these guys a smart SOB’s dude and you ain’t get’in away with it sorry – just say’in
PS – History has showen whatever the Gov its not always right

LikeLike
Dixon Cruickshank

26 August 2010

You still have not answered the question of why you purposely avioded the real thrust of Prop 23 and couldn’t say CO2 even if its a pollutant ot not – that was misleading and actually the point of the thread

LikeLike
Steven Frisch

26 August 2010

Dixon are you reading something else? CO2 is air pollution as deemed by the EPA. I said air pollution. The air pollution that AB 32 is proposed to deal with is: CO2, Nitrous Oxide, Methane, Ozone, and Chlorofluorocarbons. I had no more than 4 minutes to speak and the one term “air pollution” covered all of the gases covered by AB 32.
AB 32 is also designed to deal with diesel emissions and particulate matter coming from diesel emissions.
http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=923

LikeLike
George Rebane

31 August 2010

Re AB32’s effect on jobs, I was remiss in not pointing to this post on the same subject. My apprehensions are being played out.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/11/broken-windows-and-californias-greenhouse-gas-plan.html
(Note also my reference to the ‘Onion’ as The Union under the tutelage of its former editor.)

LikeLike