Proposition 23

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.

CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.

Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.

CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.

Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.

CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.

Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.

CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.

Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.

CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.

Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.
[/quote]

That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.
[/quote]

That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.
[/quote]

That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.
[/quote]

That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.
[/quote]

That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.[/quote]

Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? In point of fact, I don’t choose to ignore it, I simply pointed out the misuse of data. The problem with East Anglia and IPCC has more to do with politicizing science, than shoddy research or a faulty review process. And, as we both know, the Himalayan mistake was not the only one made.

I work in blast engineering and am in a partnership with a major research university, so please don’t preach to me about mistakes or disregarding data from academic institutions. I’m extremely cognizant of university politics, especially within those institutions that rely heavily on government grants.

If the argument is going to be substantive, it has to be backed by meaningful data, and the costs need to be detailed and weighed against the benefits. Simply throwing numbers about is pointless. That was the problem with Kyoto, and it was never fully addressed, and then that particular chicken came home to roost again in Copenhagen.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.[/quote]

Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? In point of fact, I don’t choose to ignore it, I simply pointed out the misuse of data. The problem with East Anglia and IPCC has more to do with politicizing science, than shoddy research or a faulty review process. And, as we both know, the Himalayan mistake was not the only one made.

I work in blast engineering and am in a partnership with a major research university, so please don’t preach to me about mistakes or disregarding data from academic institutions. I’m extremely cognizant of university politics, especially within those institutions that rely heavily on government grants.

If the argument is going to be substantive, it has to be backed by meaningful data, and the costs need to be detailed and weighed against the benefits. Simply throwing numbers about is pointless. That was the problem with Kyoto, and it was never fully addressed, and then that particular chicken came home to roost again in Copenhagen.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.[/quote]

Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? In point of fact, I don’t choose to ignore it, I simply pointed out the misuse of data. The problem with East Anglia and IPCC has more to do with politicizing science, than shoddy research or a faulty review process. And, as we both know, the Himalayan mistake was not the only one made.

I work in blast engineering and am in a partnership with a major research university, so please don’t preach to me about mistakes or disregarding data from academic institutions. I’m extremely cognizant of university politics, especially within those institutions that rely heavily on government grants.

If the argument is going to be substantive, it has to be backed by meaningful data, and the costs need to be detailed and weighed against the benefits. Simply throwing numbers about is pointless. That was the problem with Kyoto, and it was never fully addressed, and then that particular chicken came home to roost again in Copenhagen.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.[/quote]

Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? In point of fact, I don’t choose to ignore it, I simply pointed out the misuse of data. The problem with East Anglia and IPCC has more to do with politicizing science, than shoddy research or a faulty review process. And, as we both know, the Himalayan mistake was not the only one made.

I work in blast engineering and am in a partnership with a major research university, so please don’t preach to me about mistakes or disregarding data from academic institutions. I’m extremely cognizant of university politics, especially within those institutions that rely heavily on government grants.

If the argument is going to be substantive, it has to be backed by meaningful data, and the costs need to be detailed and weighed against the benefits. Simply throwing numbers about is pointless. That was the problem with Kyoto, and it was never fully addressed, and then that particular chicken came home to roost again in Copenhagen.

[Author]

Posts