Republican Corner: Major Study shows Prop 23 will save thousands of jobs

3637-Prop23-thumb-450x104-3634.png

Report shared by Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party

Major Study Predicts Job Gains if Prop 23 Passes

Respected economist Ben Zycher recently completed this study for the Pacific Research Institute. It shows the massive numbers of jobs we stand to gain if Proposition 23 passes in November, or how many we stand to lose if it doesn’t.

Here is the forward from Zycher here:

“The California electorate next month will vote on Proposition 23, which would suspend the implementation of the state’s global warming (i.e., energy taxation) law (“AB32) until the unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. My new paper on the employment effects of this initiative can be found in the link below.

In a nutshell: Based upon official estimates of the reduction in state energy use attendant upon implementation of AB32, Proposition 23 would increase California employment by over half a million in 2012, and over 1.3 million in 2020. (Total employment in 2009 was about 16.2 million.) Not a trivial benefit from suspending a law the original justification for which was — I am not kidding — “California has to be a leader,” a shallow rationale even by the standards of political sloganeering. The California unemployment rate stands at 12.4 percent; it will be interesting to see if the voters in this deep-blue state will choose to turn away from a regulatory juggernaut promising massive costs and, literally, no benefits”.

And here is the full report here

As most of you know I am an avid supporter of Proposition 23, and in the honor of full disclosure I also work for Assemblyman Logue who authored this proposition. I do realize that there are arguments to be made for environmental reform, but I believe this report makes clear the gravity of our situation. The earth might need environmental reforms, but California cannot afford to do it alone, nor would we have any success if we tried. Attempting to do so will live us economically crippled, and unable to enact real change, baby steps if you will, towards a cleaner environment. It is clear that Proposition 23 must be passed if our state is ever to recover from the endless national recession.

Thank you for reading. It is my honor to serve both in the Republican Party, and as a writer here at Post Scripts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Republican Corner: Major Study shows Prop 23 will save thousands of jobs

  1. Quentin Colgan says:

    Show this to Dan Logue, Quick!!!
    They went to his office and asked if he could name one job that had left because of AB 32.
    He could not.
    Give him this and he won’t sound so ignorant the next time he brings it up!

  2. Steve says:

    Quentin,

    Clearly you missed the Chico LOWV debate where the local liberal press tried to put Dan Logue on the spot, and he presented very clear facts and arguments. I and other citizens witnessed this, unlike the incident you cite here. I would ask for your sources or even a news clipping but I don’t have that much faith in your intellectual honesty.

    I am curious if you think Logue’s opponent would be able to answer your imaginary questions?

    Your own biases are showing again. You protested Republican HQ for supporting city council candidates. I have yet to see you protest the democrats and post it on your blog for doing the same thing. Your latest blog entry focueses solely on where republican candidates get their money, but no one else. Do you even have a reason to run for city council, other than to try and harrass and disrupt the conservative vote?

  3. Mark says:

    You guys are a crack-up.

    You doubt the thousands of scientists on the IPCC that say climate change is real, buy you fall all over yourselves at the words of some adjunct from CSU, Channel Islands? LOL!

    Forget the credentials however and check out his methods. To predict how the transition to a low carbon economy will work out, he uses an historical comparison between energy use and employment in California. Where is the nexus? Maybe there could be another reason, like the global economy? Global economy goes up, energy use and employment in CA go up; global economy goes down, energy use and employment in CA goes down.

    Brilliant!

  4. Harold Ey says:

    Better yet Quentin, please research a article released recently that show ‘CARB’ skewed the research figures that help lead to SB32. Their figures showed a 340% dirtier air quality than was actually the case! . Also when questioned CARB officials were unable to answer why the mistake in their own study. Dirty air No! dirty tricks Yes

  5. Tina says:

    Mark: “You doubt the thousands of scientists on the IPCC that say climate change is real…”

    There are a number of reasons to doubt:

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4016

    according to an article in the National Post (h/t WUWT).

    The UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen experts, he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

    See also here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

    http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-how-many-scientists-support-ipcc.html

    Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCCs report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him as the Secretariat advised me when I inquired in 2007 that the great majority of those scientists were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCCs conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCCs claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet. ** The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined endorsements.

    http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/

    William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had some dealing with the climate. His complete answer was that he thought, something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate. In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-ever-survey-of-ipcc-scientists-undermines-alleged-consensus-on-global-warming-poll-exposes-disagreement-and-confusion-among-united-nations-scientists-58803957.html

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Is there really a “consensus” on global warming among the scientists participating in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S. scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report. “Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific consensus on global warming is ludicrous,” said Steve Milloy, DemandDebate.com’s executive director. During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345 U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC’s “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis” with a six-question survey on climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC lead authors. Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess. “Among survey respondents, then, there’s no consensus on desirability of 1-degree Celsius of global warming — twice the level of warming that occurred during the 20th century,” observed Milloy. When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. “So if there’s no agreement on what the target climate should be, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the climatic goal at which we are aiming?,” Milloy asked. Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change. “So was there no climate change before mankind?” Milloy asked. “And if there was natural climate change before man, why not now also?” he added. Forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was unprecedentedly warm. “The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of them by the IPCC,” Milloy noted. “But when you ask questions that are off the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,” concluded Milloy.

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html

    UN IPCC Scientist Says Global Warming Big Deception

    “Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “When a bureaucracy’s reason for existence is threatened, it typically generates new missions.” Desperately Seeking Mission: Why the State Department’s Gone Green — Peter VanDoren

    “CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain – literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is an abuse of language, logic and science.” – Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction.” – S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

    “Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants’ photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned.” – Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

    “To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.” – Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

    “Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat ‘starved’ for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind’s activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as ‘food’ and as a by-product.” – Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

    “I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land.” – David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth.” – Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”. Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either ‘Carbon Taxes’ or ‘Cap and Trade’ policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect…) to skyrocket.

    Look at the below data, follow the links, learn the truth and stop being a “useful idiot” for those who want nothing more than total control and all the money!

    Carbon Dioxide
    – Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth’s Atmosphere (NASA)

    – Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)

    – Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)

    – Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)

    – OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)
    Kyoto Protocol

    The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate ‘Greenhouse Gases’ only:

    – Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    – Methane (CH4)
    – Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
    – Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
    – Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
    – Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
    Car Exhaust
    Car Exhaust consists of:
    Harmless:
    – Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    – Nitrogen (N2)
    – Water vapor (H2O)
    Some Pollutants:
    – Carbon monoxide (CO) *
    – Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
    – Nitric oxide (NO) *
    – Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
    – Particulate matter (PM-10) *
    – Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

    * Your car’s Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (check the Harmless list again)

    Smog
    Smog consists of:
    – Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
    – Particulate matter (PM-10) *
    – Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

    * Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)

    SUVs
    – Since the mid-1970s, the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks has improved by nearly 60%. (Source)

    – Today’s SUVs are 50% more efficient than cars were a generation ago. (Source)

    – The emissions from a new midsize SUV are cleaner than those of the average passenger car built just three years ago. (Source)

    – All the cars and light trucks in the U.S. make up only about 2% of all man-made greenhouse gases worldwide. (Source)

    Air Quality in America
    – The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally “polluting” activities (Source)

    – Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed. (Source)

    – Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most (Source)

    – Air quality in the United States will continue to improve (Source)

    – Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States (Source)

    Air Quality in America (PDF) (AEI)

    It took me only 11 minutes to find these scientists, and links to literally tens of thousands more like them (over 30,000). With that being said, how can any reasonable, thinking adult believe that the “debate is over” and that the “science is settled”?

    CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not responsible for Global Warming, it is responsible for life on this planet, and a critical trace element for life continuing. It is not, however, ever going to be responsible for what politicians, movie stars, eco-terrorist activists, and greedy cap ‘n’ trade proponents say it is, toxic pollution. Those words more appropriately describe Al Gore and his fawning sycophants as the fear and hate mongers they truly are.

    Theres a lot more to be found about the IPCC scientists and their political opinionsbut this will suffice for now. (later I will post the John Stossel video to the front page)

  6. Mark says:

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet”

    Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

    The Supreme Court, that liberal bastion of radicalism, recently ruled that CO2 could be regulated as a pollutant, because everyone knows you can have too much of a good thing.

    The science is sound, unlike the economics of the researcher cited.

  7. Tina says:

    Mark: “Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.”

    You and Al should take that advice to heart!

    “The Supreme Court, that liberal bastion of radicalism, recently ruled that CO2 could be regulated…”

    I will need to look up the ruling to be certain but I believe the court did not rule on the science; it ruled on the legality or Constitutionality of the EPA making that kind of determination.

    “The science is sound, unlike the economics of the researcher cited.”

    And the opinions of the scientists?

    U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

    Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

    S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

    Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

    Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

    Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

    David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

    Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

    I notice you don’t really comment on the fact that these respected scientists have come forward to express differing opinions…opinions that debunk the consensus lie!

  8. Mark says:

    Tina,

    It is a difference of magnitude. You list 9 scientists, I counter with a statement from 18 scientific associations/organizations.

    October 21, 2009

    Dear Senator:
    As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
    Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1
    If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
    We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Meteorological Society
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of America
    Ecological Society of America
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

  9. John Mac says:

    Eco-Hysteria is so Boring.

    Very few voters and I suspect the majority of those commenting have NOT taken the time to read AB 32.

    AB 32 was enacted before the facts were known. It simply needs to strip out the Cap and Trade and reliance on GHG assumptions and its potentially a piece of leadership legislation for other states. Sustainability, Clean Energy, and Stewardship are great goals but not at the expense of Common Sense.

    AB 32 needs to be suspended and or immediately amended to eliminate the Cap and Trade provisions 70% of America Opposes, eliminate the unnecessary fee based oversight, eliminate the reliance on GHG assumptions which are proving to be false, correct the vague language that will introduce Environmental Red Tape that will do more damage than good, and make non-governmental agencies like CARB accountable to the taxpayer.

    Keep in mind that Green Tech is a fly on the elephant that is California Agriculture. California Agriculture will be impacted by AB 32 in its current form and the EPA nonsense related to CO2 and, this one is really off the wall, Regulating Farm Dust.

    AB 32 needs to be amended or Voting YES on Prop 23 makes the most sense.

    excerpt from the approved 2008 California
    Climate Change Scoping Plan

    Key elements of Californias recommendations for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include:
    Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
    Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
    Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
    Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
    Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including Californias clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
    Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the States long term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

  10. John Mac says:

    Mark,
    There aren’t 1,000s of Scientists who openly agree with the idea of Global Warming; only 7%. The rest are undecided of reject the idea.

    Do some research before spouting off!!!

  11. John from CA says:

    Mark,
    This statement is also inaccurate. What the Supreme Court has ruled in EPA cases like CO2 and recently Farm Dust is, though the EPA can not conclusively prove that CO2 or Dust is harmful, the EPA has the right to regulate a substance that in its view may be harmful to the public.

    The Supreme Court never ruled that CO2 or Dust is harmful or that it has any impact on climate.

  12. John Mac says:

    Breaking News:

    Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara Resigns from The American Physical Society today.
    source: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

    The reason:
    “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

  13. Tina says:

    Mark: “It is a difference of magnitude. You list 9 scientists, I counter with a statement from 18 scientific associations/organizations.”

    Mark youre being a bit disingenuous now. Either that or you have forgotten my previous posts regarding scientists in disagreementor you are in complete denial, fingers in the ears, eyes closed, singing la, la, la ,la la

    In fact a letter signed by 31,487 scientists was sent to the US Congress. It read in part:

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    See the signatures and find more information here:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all

    Your penchant for dismissing scientists, many with PhDs, as if they were flipping Burgers for a living is making you look silly. It doesnt make a lot of sense since you seem otherwise to be quite sensible.

    The word consensus was chosen to decieve by a political movement to give the impression that the science was settled…IT IS NOT! To say it is in the face of so much disagreement clearly shows there is no consensus!

  14. Mark says:

    John,

    Thousands of scientists did the research on the IPCC 4th report. 7% wrote the summery report. Some of the “thousands” disagree with the summery. I understand the difference.

    You sir, are the one that needs to “do some research.” Read the past two years of Post Scripts and you will find that I do not need any facts what so ever in oder to spout off.

  15. Post Scripts says:

    Excellent find Hal!

  16. John Mac says:

    Mark,
    The issue here is very simple.

    AB 32 contains provisions that need to be amended like dropping the Cap and Trade aspect. It also impacts segments of the California economy that make Green Tech look like a fly; Agriculture is an example.

    Until AB 32 is amended, the best action is to vote YES on Prop. 23.

    Sent my vote in today by mail so you’re wasting your breath.

  17. Just want to thank you for this cool site!

Comments are closed.