245 responses to “Sandbox – 3jul15”

1. 

   Steven Frisch

   03 July 2015

   Well, let me be the first to say I’m just not into it because it goes nowhere 🙂
   That is not a concession of the science, merely an acknowledgement that no progress can be made here. I will save my effort for the California legislature where I am winning.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   03 July 2015

   StevenF 907am – and with your philosophy and understanding you are correct in doing that. The California legislature long ago abandoned the science of climate change in its legislation on the matter. You see, not only can “no progress be made here”, it was long since any progress was made in Sacramento on the issue. RR is just the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Todd Juvinall

   03 July 2015

   Steve Frisch at 1:48 AM or some such ungodly hour wrote this on the last sandbox,
   “That way if people want to hear Russ and Greg call me a rent seeker, or pontificate about how much smarter they are because they went to Harvey Mudd University, or how much more they know because they are some sort of scientists esconsced on the back porches of Nevada County, or argue over how big Jeff’s truck is, or laugh when Bill tell fart jokes, or stay quiet while Todd cites anecdotal media reports that he appears to have not even read or watched himself, there is a place for it.
   The “sandbox” is where your freak flags can fly my friends. It is designed for exactly such ephemera. ”
   What the reader can see and read from this fellow is the classic liberal attack on those he disagrees with. The liberal denies he does this even when confronted wth their own words. Is it any wonder there is a “great divide” in America??
   So, when this fellow on the left pontificates, you can now disregard him. Just not a believable person and his credentials are minimal. Like we used to say, he is a “jack of all trades and a master of none”. That is the bottom line.
   Now he says he is winning in the California Legislature and government. Yes, he is, as we see freedom removed for individuals and government power increasing exponentially here. How a liberal can say they are compassionate and caring for the less fortunate and then back and impose tax policies and penalties on the less fortunate is beyond comprehension. California has a huge share of poor and this liberal’s policies are stealing their money in the form of “cap and trade” energy penalties. So, what to do? Food or AC? Drive to work or food? If you all want to see the results of the kinds of policies Mr. Frisch is helping ram down the throats of the poor and fragile, look at Greece or Zimbabwe. Not a pretty site.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Joe Koyote

   03 July 2015

   “debating climate change between people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems), and those who don’t is not possible. One side can cite and interpret the technical literature, and other side can only appeal to ‘consensus science’ or my scientist(s) are smarter than your scientist(s). ”
   George, don’t you think this is kind of self-defeating, at least for the deniers? If all of the rest of us non-hard science folks aren’t capable of understanding the issues or data, then all we have to go with are the odds. If 97% of science (ie. people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) tells us the climate is changing due to human involvement (i.e.. pollution, deforestation, and/or whatever), it makes the denial side of the argument seem to be more influenced by ideologically than “science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)”. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the 97%, so what is the argument really about? The issues around climate change, the progressives would argue, threaten the very existence of the corporate model of capitalist economics. So why wouldn’t the energy industry adopt the “denial” model used by the tobacco industry for decades to deflect the truth about tobacco products, in a similar campaign to protect their investment? And why would republicans (commonly associated with big business) be far more likely to be deniers, if ideology weren’t a factor.
   There is far more to the climate change debate than science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) that perhaps gets left out of the conversation when the focus is narrowed to the science only.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Todd Juvinall

   03 July 2015

   Global warming was created from whole cloth as a political tool. The left couldn’t sell it, the computer models were bogus and the emails between the AGW conspirators were uncovered. It is only a political tool for control. Communists have a amazing way of gaining control through subterfuge. But we who have always known the truth cannot be be muted.

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   03 July 2015

   JoeK 1135am – No doubt there is and has been “far more to the climate change debate than science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)”, but we have to always keep in the forefront that the truth values of all Climate Change Propositions are fundamentally determinants of science. Belief in ‘climate change’ is a multi-dimensional undertaking. I have listed what may be considered the prime set of CCPs here –
   http://sesf.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/the_question_of.html
   And each of them has to be accepted as TRUE before any subsequent public policy is to be based on reason.
   An interesting thing to note is that when skeptics present data and information from the literature, the True Believers reply with consensus science, i.e. no science at all. The fraction of IPCC scientists is very small, of who understand even a small fraction of the points I raised in my intro above. When they have been individually interviewed, they freely admit that their contributions was small and focused, and many are not even apprised of how their specialized work got integrated into the overall report. So to claim that the consensus of this science reaches into the “97%” level is a specious argument more at home with demogauges and politicians who depend on their talking to gruberized audiences.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Todd Juvinall

   03 July 2015

   I wonder how they came to the 97% anyway. Let’s see, there are how many scientists on planet earth?

   LikeLike

8. 

   Russ

   03 July 2015

   Todd@12:11PM
   Go to Watts Up With That and type in 97% in the Search block. You will find over 40 posts refuting the 97% scientific consensus. Here is a quote from one example by Jo Nova:
   As Tol explains, the Cook et al paper used an unrepresentative sample, can’t be replicated, and leaves out many useful papers. The study was done by biased observers who disagreed with each other a third of the time, and disagree with the authors of those papers nearly two-thirds of the time. About 75% of the papers in the study were irrelevant in the first place, with nothing to say about the subject matter. Technically, we could call them “padding”. Cook himself has admitted data quality is low. He refused to release all his data, and even threatened legal action to hide it. (The university claimed it would breach a confidentiality agreement. But in reality, there was no agreement to breach.) As it happens, the data ended up being public anyhow. Tol refers to an “alleged hacker” but, my understanding is that no hack took place, and the “secret” data, that shouldn’t have been a secret, was left on an unguarded server. The word is “incompetence”, and the phrase is “on every level”.
   The hidden timestamps of raters revealed one person rated 675 abstracts in 72 hours, with much care and lots of rigor, I’m sure. It also showed that the same people collected data, analyzed results, collected more data, changed their classification system, and went on to collect even more data. This is a hopelessly unscientific process prone to subjective bias and breaches the most basic rules of experimental design. Tol found the observations changed with each round, so the changes were affecting the experiment. Normal scientists put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment, run it, and then analyze. When scientists juggle these steps, the results influence the testing. It’s a process someone might use if they wanted to tweak the experiment to get a specific outcome. We can’t know the motivations of researchers, but there is a reason good scientists don’t use this process.
   My problem with taking the Cook paper seriously is that it is so wholly, profoundly, unscientific from beginning to end that it’s hard to muster any mental effort to unpack a pointless study that will never tell us anything about the atmosphere on Earth.
   So, we have Joe Koyote supporting a totally discredited study. He and thousands of other progressives, including some of our legislators in Sacramento. This is the kind of science that the left uses to make the public policy that Steven Frisch supports in Sacramento. Much of AB32 was based on the IPCC report that relied on Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Again, public policy being made based on flawed science, policy that is supported by Steven Frisch, and that is why he refuses to engage in the discussion, as he knows that the whole AGW argument is based on flawed science. Science flaws that he cannot explain away.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Gregory

   03 July 2015

   “That way if people want to hear Russ and Greg call me a rent seeker, or pontificate about how much smarter they are because they went to Harvey Mudd University[sic], or how much more they know because they are some sort of scientists [sic] esconsced on the back porches of Nevada County, or argue over how big Jeff’s truck is…”
   That was one big mudball from the usual suspect. Doug Keachie was the first to use my education against me, and Steve,the polisci guy from CalState Frisco, picked it right up. Steve, I’ve known calstate physics majors and while the only incompetent physics prof I ever observed was at CalState LA, most all their declared majors would have hacked it just fine at another top school like UCLA. But I’ve never met a polisci major who could hack a real science.
   Also, there never was an argument over how big the FUE’s truck is; it’s a huge gas hog… but neither Pelline nor any of his buddies want to take the man (?) on for the glaring hypocrisy of driving such a behemoth while posting such hate filled propaganda against “deniers”… As if the rhetoric was sufficient as a climate indulgence forgiving the latest dun.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    Russ 1:11 PM.
    Thanks I’ll check the links. I suppose the “consensus” or “polling” results are there as well? And the underlying questions? 97%. Wow!
    AB32 is making modern day Californians into slaves. The poor now must beg for help where before they were able to make it on their own. AB32 and “cap and trade” are impacting costs all the way from digging a hole to the finished product. While the AB32 hoaxers fly around in jets burning huge amounts of “carbon” on the way to “summits” to discuss “carbon” we all just shake our heads at their hypocrisy.
    The SBC trip to China to see how well those commies are making the things we buy from them must have been quite the “carbon” polluter. As long as the elites thumb heir noses at the poor they are now screwing with higher utility and gas bills, no one I know will ever buy in to the hoax.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    For all those liberals who think the Second Amendment is only for having no gun or only one in the house. Here is a former gal from CNN who along with her hubby killed a scumbag in a robbery attempted on them. In New Mexico. Both husband and wife have conceal/carry permits. Scumbag dead, hubby shot three times and recovering.
    http://news.yahoo.com/police-identify-motel-intruder-shot-ex-cnn-reporter-143055852.html

    LikeLike

12. 

    Gregory

    03 July 2015

    “If 97% of science (ie. people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) tells us the climate is changing due to human involvement (i.e.. pollution, deforestation, and/or whatever), it makes the denial side of the argument seem to be more influenced by ideologically than “science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)”. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the 97%, so what is the argument really about?”
    Few actual surveys have been made; the one (1) I know of was the American Meteorological Society’s survey of their professional membership (the ones with degrees in things like meteorology and atmospheric physics) last year. only 52% believed there was significant warming that was mostly due to mankind over the last century. The first “study” I am aware of that found 97/98% was Doran & Zimmerman… they invited 10,000 earth scientists to take an anonymous survey, something like 3300 took it… and to get 97.4% they threw out all but 79 surveys and only two questions made the cut… has it gotten warmer since the little ice age and did mankind have a significant influence? 77 of 79 answered both yes,which are also my answers and I’ve been a scoffer since 2007.
    The alarmist crowd wanted their take to be on par with evolution and went out to prove it; competent scientists would have known it was a lie but I can’t take Doran, Zimmerman, Oreskes(!) or Cook et al. as competent scientists.
    (Continued…)

    LikeLike

13. 

    Jon

    03 July 2015

    Todd, re: AB32,
    Slaves? LOL. Right. Its Governor Brown’s signature achievement and will go down in American history as a great milestone. If AB32 is so terrible for folks, how do explain the fact my electric PGE bill has gone DOWN this year compared to last summer, even with a much hotter summer so far? Down about 20% over last summer.

    LikeLike

14. 

    George Rebane

    03 July 2015

    For the mid-road reader, please note the above as standard fare in the climate debate. The skeptics reply in the detailed treatment of the issues citing reports and names of guilty parties. Try to find a True Believer who dares venture out of their Consensus Castle and actually do battle by citing the scientific merits or the professional credentials of skeptics. Any such attempts in the past have always resulted in an intellectual pummeling that caused such a brave TB to quickly scuttle back behind their thick walls where the ramparts are securely manned by a like-minded Consensus Chorus.
    You will quickly see that this debate has always been conducted on two planes, and the reason for that is that the voting audience is long gruberized.

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    03 July 2015

    re Jon 320pm – for those actually seeking an explanation.
    http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Templates/Default.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b77CD5FC8-B9B3-4A38-8C28-A791BFCF18B9%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fPUC%2fenergy%2fcapandtrade%2fclimatecreditfaq%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#WhatIsIt
    The answers there consist of energy price controls imposed on the utilities. But the real contribution to lower electricity bills is that oil and gas prices have plummeted during the past year thanks to production on private lands and leases, which production the federal government has done everything to hinder while Obama takes full credit for increasing supplies and lowering prices. Sites like the link above dare saying nothing about such actualities, and note that neither does their local chorus.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Steven Frisch

    03 July 2015

    Wow, I mean wow.
    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 09:46 AM
    I guess I should say that I don’t think anyone here is really in a position to be judging the Godliness any one else’s sleeping habits are they?
    Not to mention the fact that of course Todd and Greg did exactly what I said they would do, come over to the Sandbox to let their freak flags fly–for them the freak flag means fight–because they do like to fight don’t they–go right to the core boys, get your Ya, Ya’s out, the Sandbox is where you shadow box ghosts.
    Oh, and I may have reach Todd but I’m not responsible for Greece or Zimbabwe.
    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 11:58 AM
    And no, people who do not toe your line are not “Communists”
    Posted by: Gregory | 03 July 2015 at 01:24 PM
    Ah Greg, it is you who have contended that laypeople are incapable of understanding science and lack the credentials to make rational decisions about the veracity of science, pretty consistently I might add, which would mean by the way that NO ONE here would have the ability to read scientific papers (which some of us do on a regular basis) and draw any rational conclusions. It is you who continuously brings Poli Sci and Rhetoric into the equation and implies that only you are educated enough to understand science.
    And seriously, talk about derivative nonsense, the only one responsible for the choice of what vehicle to buy is the one who bought the vehicle. I never brought up vehicles you did.
    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 01:44 PM
    Ah, and the Red Herring is pulled out again. Frisch went to China….oh my God he must be a Commie….and every allegation that the tax payers must have paid for it…and that I must have visited the Mausoleum (I did 🙂 and every other boogey man of completely irrelevant quackery that can be brought up. Of course Todd has never presented one shred of evidence for anything…he just wants to imply some sort of wrong doing to muddy the waters. Guess what Todd, Nixon went to China, Jobs went to China, millions of Americans have gone to China. I went to Mongolia too, and I would go to Cuba in a heartbeat just have not been there yet. What’s next are you going to analyze the Pope’s travel schedule?
    Ah, the Sandbox….fools and ephemera….made for each other.

    LikeLike

17. 

    George Rebane

    03 July 2015

    Boy, it is hard to have you guys let go of the inter-personal exchanges – ‘he hit me first!’ rules the day.
    I do believe that the best way to drop revisiting the science credentials of commenters or the general public is to abandon consensus arguments and just stick to the science of the matter. The presented arguments will illustrate the commenters credentials and keep everyone on topic.
    Consensus arguments are famous in science for their ludicrous nature. We all know the stories of pre-Renaissance science in stasis, and the consensus arguments used by the Church. The last, and most famous one in our era was Einstein’s response to the Berlin Polytechnic (if I correctly recall) that informed him that the consensus of listed scientists repudiated relativity. He famously answered that a consensus of many was not required, just one scientist with a valid repudiation would be sufficient to destroy relativity. Such a scientist could not be found.
    I extend the invitation here to repudiate the skeptics on the science and not the consensus – else the skeptics stand and can be vanquished only by force as was Galileo by the Church.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    The lib doth protest too much. Looks like I hit the right nerves for the guilty conscience of the libs here. You readers can judge for yourselves. If it walks, talks and looks like a commie duck, it must be one. How one can praise the wonders of the Red Chinese commies and the Castro brothers and their “economic policies” as soMe sort of wonderful thing is beyond me. J
    Rather than letting the resident liberals get this mired down in the weeds like they always do, just look at the poor in California being negatively affected by AB32. Higher fuel fees and taxes for nothing but a feel good for the libs. Food or gas, for the car to get to work? Hmmm. It is all a liberal plan to control all aspects of ones life. And this is from the self proclaimed “progressives” who claim to be looking out for the little people. Ever heard of such a scam? The left is the new oligarchy.

    LikeLike

19. 

    George Rebane

    03 July 2015

    ToddJ 425pm – you could also/instead ask a member of the loyal opposition to expound on the benefits of AB32, and then dismantle that.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    True, I thought that was already being done though. Actually the whole AB32 ploy was “greenhouse gases” by people affecting “climate change”. Seems the Chinese air pollution is now detected here and it is worse than anything domestic. Maybe AB32 penalties on our utility’s can be traded to the Chinese for a few Ipads?

    LikeLike

21. 

    Steven Frisch

    03 July 2015

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 04:25 PM
    I am assuming you are talking about Julian and Joaquin Castro. I would be happy to praise them. Julian is going to probably be your next Vice President so I suggest you start learning Spanish hombre.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    You mean that commie Mayor from San Antonio? Social justice guy? OK, yep I see he is your guy.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Jon

    03 July 2015

    Can someone cite the higher fuel prices this summer in CA which are destroying the dreams of CA poor?,
    Lets see…OK, July 2015 vs. same time summer 2014 when AB32 provisions were not fully in effect. What…that looks to be just about a 30% reduction! And the electric bills are LOWER too as I mentioned. How can that be? How is it possible? I thought AB32 is killing the poor- Todd just said so. And he used to be an elected official even!
    http://www.sactogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

    LikeLike

24. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    High unemployment, millions on welfare yep, you should be proud of what you have helped bring to the State.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Jon

    03 July 2015

    All due to AB32. Exactly Todd. You are talking about AB32, and my point remains…there is not a shred of evidence that it has hurt a single poor person since its inception.
    Yes, am proud to be a Californian and am proud to be living here during this term of Jerry Brown, a true elder statesman if there ever was one. A very courageous and insightful guy. Not perfect by a longshot. Have questions about the bullet train financing and state pension obligations, like everyone else. But almost all the priorities for the future are being attended to very nicely.

    LikeLike

26. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    Have you kept track of the state’s unemployment levels? How about business starts and BK’s? Apparently you have no clue about economics.

    LikeLike

27. 

    Don Bessee

    03 July 2015

    Why then does CA have the highest poverty rate?

    LikeLike

28. 

    Jon

    03 July 2015

    Again boys, where is the data which points to AB32 as factor in CA unemployment and poverty levels?
    Simplistic rhetoric is really nice for ranting, but not much else.

    LikeLike

29. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 July 2015

    Jon, AB32 is certainly part of the problem with the economy. Why can’t you admit it? The straw that broke the camel’s back. Jeeze libs are dense.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Bill Tozer

    03 July 2015

    Well, Happy 3rd of July. May be off topic, but the “why can’t we see it the way they do” rolls on. Todd, don’t be so dense. You don’t get it cause youse ain’t got none of them thar Frisco values. I just love Frisco Values, don’t you?
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-San-Francisco-Pier/2015/07/03/id/653403/

    LikeLike

31. 

    joe smith

    03 July 2015

    The people who deny climate change tend to be the same who deny evolution and portend that that the earth is 6,000 years old. I hang my hat on evidence based science and not on faith based rhetoric.

    LikeLike

32. 

    Paul Emery

    03 July 2015

    Todd
    Care to compare the unemploymnent numbers when the Scrub left office in 08 to today.

    LikeLike

33. 

    Don Bessee

    03 July 2015

    Nice duck the ‘jon’ but I think everyone knows it in reply to the grandpa jerry valentine @635 lol

    LikeLike

34. 

    Jack Cominsky

    03 July 2015

    Amid all of the acrimonious debate over the legitimacy of AGW, I tend to agree more with the opinions of the late George Carlin than any of the so-called “experts”…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

    LikeLike

35. 

    Jon

    03 July 2015

    Paul,
    Todd and cohorts cannot find a single, solitary piece of data showing the negative impact of AB32. But yet again, Todd doubles down even when he loses a debate. All I want to see is some data on AB32’s negative impacts, but alas nothing. Todd, you lost on this one. Move on to your next topic.

    LikeLike

36. 

    George Rebane

    03 July 2015

    Jon 1031pm – We all know the parameters of California’s economic decline and middle class exodus. What kind of specific evidence are you looking for when AB32 regulations and taxes hit broad based markets? You seem to be among those progressives who claim that economic activity is independent of tax rates. Is that true?
    JackC 1028pm – thanks for letting us see Carlin again. The man says it so well.

    LikeLike

37. 

    Bill Tozer

    03 July 2015

    More Frisco Values. I wish they would have gone ahead and tore it down 2 years ago. That would have kicked their harebrained ideas back 30 years. Mr. Frisco Values, tear down this wall.
    http://www.hetchhetchy.org

    LikeLike

38. 

    Gregory

    04 July 2015

    “Ah Greg, it is you who have contended that laypeople are incapable of understanding science and lack the credentials to make rational decisions about the veracity of science, pretty consistently I might add, which would mean by the way that NO ONE here would have the ability to read scientific papers (which some of us do on a regular basis) and draw any rational conclusions. It is you who continuously brings Poli Sci and Rhetoric into the equation and implies that only you are educated enough to understand science.”
    I’m not responsible for your loose and ugly caricatures of past thoughts of mine Steve, and after years of reading your screeds I cannot remember even one instance of you ever making an scientific argument… not just a parroting of factoids (rare enough) but a reasoned case showing some evidence of sentience on your part.
    It may be hard to accept, but people with degrees in subjects like chemistry, physics, math and engineering really do know more about the physical world than most others. If you really have studied on your own, show some evidence of it and discuss the bloody science rather than repeats of the same old false ad homs but as long as you “hate my guts” there’s probably not much hope for you… that would be playing on my turf, and George’s.
    And I’ll say this again… “denier” is hate speech, pure and simple. Drop it.

    LikeLike

39. 

    Michael R. Kesti

    04 July 2015

    Paul Emery 03Jul15 10:10 PM
    They say that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics but unemployment statistics top them all.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Jon

    04 July 2015

    George, 10:55PM,
    First off, Happy 4th of July. Much to celebrate and be thankful for in America. Enjoy the fairground activities today.
    re: AB32, and as you are implying, there are obviously a multitude of factors impacting economic activity, and CA is the most complex, most diversified entity of economic activity to ever study. To just throw AB32 out there and state emphatically and absolutely that it has created negative impacts on economic activity is a lazy, ideologically based conclusion. I could conclude just as easily that Brown’s tax increase on high income has been an immense positive for our fiscal situation in the state. I would say there is more evidence that it has been a positive economic impact.
    We are way too early in the AB32 game to conclude anything, and you guys have correctly found no direct evidence of its impact, one way or another.

    LikeLike

41. 

    drivebyposter

    04 July 2015

    “Care to compare the unemploymnent numbers when the Scrub left office in 08 to today.”
    Shrub?
    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/12/Labor%20Force%201.jpg
    I can’t say that giving a President (or a dominant party in Congress) credit for being a prime mover in the employment rate is a particularly worthwhile or accurate goal. It does make for a better story, though.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Steven Frisch

    04 July 2015

    Posted by: Gregory | 04 July 2015 at 12:35 AM
    As I have said many times I would gladly engage you in a scientific debate in an appropriately and fairly managed debate.
    I and others have attempted to do that in the past only to be told by you that we lack the understanding and experience to engage in a scientific debate. I even offered a format where we could bring actual scientific expertise to the table and conduct such a debate in public using actual rules. Frankly, my contacts in the climate science community would probably love the opportunity, but only in a format where climate deniers like you could not grandstand.
    On this forum the issue can not be addressed because you actually don’t accept “scientific’ arguments.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Steven Frisch

    04 July 2015

    Posted by: drivebyposter | 04 July 2015 at 07:46 AM
    Let me see if I have the correct driveby; you would not give government the credit for a positive employment picture but you would give it blame for a negative employment picture?

    LikeLike

44. 

    Gregory

    04 July 2015

    Frisch, your appeals to authority, past and present, do not count as scientific arguments, and my recollections of the past do not mesh with yours. Perhaps, if you could actually fit out a link or two to actual exchanges you feel raw about, some enlightenment could occur.

    LikeLike

45. 

    George Rebane

    04 July 2015

    Jon 741am – thank you, and the rest of the day to you and yours.
    I believe your error re AB32 and other such burdens government puts on us is what in economics has come to be known as ‘that which is seen and that which is not seen’, perhaps most clearly illustrated by Bastiat in his ‘Broken Window’ (1850) dissertation. Here are a couple of links to it.
    http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
    Locally the late businessman Lowell Robinson testified before many elected bodies and unelected commissions about the unseen impact of AB32 on California’s business community and ergo its economy. Robinson Enterprises operates machinery and heavy equipment which uses various forms of energy to power them. Robinson pointed out that AB32 has a number of arcane yet specific strictures it imposes on businesses operating such equipments which range from having to retire entire fleets of diesel trucks to costly replacement of internal parts of pumps, generators, and power tools that CARB deems will then make such operations environmentally friendly and significantly slow down global warming.
    All of these compliance actions take money directly out a business, monwy that it could now not spend for expansion, purchase of new equipment, or hire more workers. That was the part neither seen by the public nor understood by the progressive central planners. Their easily defeatable argument that additional jobs would created to support AB32 compliance has never pencilled out or successfully competed with the businessman’s own alternative plans for the use of such monies. Were that not the case then it would be an easy matter to grow economies through nothing but the imposition of even more costly bureaucratic mandates. Nations that have tried that have either failed or live on in destitution as failed states. (I also point you to the naif’s article in the 4jul15 Union exhorting the US to follow the path of ever more struggling socialist nations of the EU.)
    Perhaps the greatest hubris of the progressive is that distant bureaucrats know better the operation of businesses, and can therefore foster their greater success through mandating one-size-fits-all regulations that remove/redirect monies which the businesses had intended for their own plans. And moreover, that taking additional monies from an enterprise does not affect its plan forward or opportunities for success.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Gregory

    04 July 2015

    “On this forum the issue can not be addressed because you actually don’t accept “scientific’ arguments.”
    Until March 2007 I accepted AGW as a problem based on accounts, in newspapers and lay oriented periodicals such as SciAm,of IPCC-brand science. It was scientific arguments that brought me to my current understanding, and the science behind clouds and aerosols, the core of that 2007 epiphany, has solidified greatly since then.
    There’s a 540 million year record of ocean temps correlating beautifully with galactic cosmic ray flux as our solar system orbits the galactic center of mass, and the geochemist who developed that dataset was expecting to find a correlation with co2 but that was not in evidence.
    Perhaps one of the science autodidacts can chime in. A paper to read first might be “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” by Shaviv and Veizer (2003).

    LikeLike

47. 

    George Rebane

    04 July 2015

    re the Goodknight/Frisch global warming debate.
    This longstanding proposal will not serve its intended resolution of the issue. Elsewhere in these pages I have made the case against it. There is a reason that public debates about arcane technical issues are not popular. When attempted, they always wind up playing to the peanut gallery of an uninformed (uninformable?) audience. And the words of the participants are ephemeral, of the moment, and play more on the emotional response to the turn of a phrase than to the substance of the matter.
    A much better approach is to have the debaters deliver their arguments and rebuttals in writing within an agreed exchange format. Then the readers will have the ability to view ‘stable arguments’ colored neither by their method nor moment of delivery. The debate as proposed will be an inevitable circus from which both participants will exit beating their chests claiming victory. And most deplorably there will be no opportunity for a reasonable post-mortem dissection of presented arguments.
    RR will gladly serve as the venue for publishing such a debate should its putative participants agree.
    (I for one would be most eager to see Mr Frisch’s dissertation on the relevant science of the matter. BTW, I was told that Mr Frisch posted a link on another blog to a youtube that was claimed to devastate a consevratarian’s “denial of global warming”. I take it that the referent conservatarian is me. I invite the link being posted here, so that we can make short work of it. )

    LikeLike

48. 

    Jon

    04 July 2015

    George, I fully understand your argument. Yes there are costs of compliance of AB32. I know you hate this term, but I believe the greater good served by an improvement in air quality must be accounted for as well. All of this is led by elected officials, then implemented by bureaucrats. Yes, many of them are unyielding and frustrating to deal with. I do wish there were more opportunities for appeals in many regulatory matters, of course we would agree there. But the positive impacts vs. costs was the entire core of the AB32 argument a few years ago. I think people like the late Mr. Robinson simply didn’t believe we can make a tangible difference in air quality and carbon reduction through changing the status quo. Many people of good will did believe we could make a difference. Interesting that my direct observation, and study of the data, is that our Ozone problems in the western County have vastly improved since imposition of some of these regulations. Here in our area, I remember dozens of days of unhealthy air in NC 5-10 years ago, now its a handful of unhealthy days in the last few years. Even with the heat we have seen since June this year. I think Gretchen Bennet has commented on this as well. And personally when I run my mowers and cutters, I am very thankful they are CARB compliant in CA.

    LikeLike

49. 

    George Rebane

    04 July 2015

    Jon 1043am – all regs have compliance costs, and that in itself is not the reason to “hate” any regulation per se. The reason that I and others like me are repelled by AB32 is that there is no measurable evidence of its delivering the environmental benefit for which it was devised and implemented, notwithstanding its punishment of CA’s economy. The fact that it would not measurably improve our environment was known before AB32 came to pass, and has been confirmed since then. The atmospheric physics simply don’t support any such claims. The only objectives that imposition of AB32 serves, and serves well are those gathered under UN’s world vision in Agenda21, which is a reasonable conclusion as to why it was introduced.
    Jon, when we come down to it, AB32 is just one of many battles waged by today’s opposites of the Great Divide. If we truly wanted to reconcile our differences, we would have to penetrate their meta layers to a place wherein we present each other our widely different understandings of how this universe works and informs the conduct of its sentient, and perhaps sapient, earthlings. Till then we will be talking past each other, while convinced that the other is some amalgam of stupid and evil.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Russ

    04 July 2015

    Jon@10:43AM
    Can you please explain the scientific connection between CO2 reduction, the goal of AB-32 and Ozone reduction in California? When I met with the staff at the Air Quality District, they could not explain the connection, since you seem to know of one can you please explain. There are several economic and political connections, fewer carbon fueled cars on the road is one, but the science connection between CO2 emissions and the chemistry of Ozone creation seems to be lost in the fog of environmentalism.

    LikeLike