Proposition 23

[EmilyHicks]

My voting strategy now is voting against anything that the liberals are for.

[luchabee]

I am always entertained when liberals attempt to predict the future on anything. In this case, it was global warming, then aggregate temperatures declined and their models were exposed as complete fraud and fantasy.

Now, it is “global climate change” . . . whatever nebulous standards this is based on–probably what ever happens that year with the weather.

Reminds me of the Obama’s prediction that unemployment would be a 7.5 percent with the stimulus and would be 9.5 without it, with the opposite happening.

Oregon economist: Obama prediction veering off mark

No doubt, the same type of wishful-thinking-never plan-on-unintended-consequences-event would occur here with this law. Isn’t that a great definition for the left? While I won’t get into the inane discussion about how many jobs will be lost because of this law, it is just an additional layer of feel-good emotional regulation that we don’t need in California for something that will have no effect on aggregate “global warming,” which doesn’t even exist.

Also, while I am at it, I bet 99% of the windmill and solar panel lovers advocating for this global warming law and “green jobs” likely will never employ a real person . . . ever.

Liberalism’s incessant drive to create inefficient regulations and tax small business actually creates what liberals say they don’t like, a wider distinction between rich and poor. With these regulations, most of those running businesses either fail (and become poor) or leave the state. So, we are only left with the poor, government workers as the new middle class, and then a few rich. Pretty much California, in a nutshell.

If this law stands, along with the 1099-misc regulation for Obamacare, we might as well close down California for business right now.

[luchabee]

I am always entertained when liberals attempt to predict the future on anything. In this case, it was global warming, then aggregate temperatures declined and their models were exposed as complete fraud and fantasy.

Now, it is “global climate change” . . . whatever nebulous standards this is based on–probably what ever happens that year with the weather.

Reminds me of the Obama’s prediction that unemployment would be a 7.5 percent with the stimulus and would be 9.5 without it, with the opposite happening.

Oregon economist: Obama prediction veering off mark

No doubt, the same type of wishful-thinking-never plan-on-unintended-consequences-event would occur here with this law. Isn’t that a great definition for the left? While I won’t get into the inane discussion about how many jobs will be lost because of this law, it is just an additional layer of feel-good emotional regulation that we don’t need in California for something that will have no effect on aggregate “global warming,” which doesn’t even exist.

Also, while I am at it, I bet 99% of the windmill and solar panel lovers advocating for this global warming law and “green jobs” likely will never employ a real person . . . ever.

Liberalism’s incessant drive to create inefficient regulations and tax small business actually creates what liberals say they don’t like, a wider distinction between rich and poor. With these regulations, most of those running businesses either fail (and become poor) or leave the state. So, we are only left with the poor, government workers as the new middle class, and then a few rich. Pretty much California, in a nutshell.

If this law stands, along with the 1099-misc regulation for Obamacare, we might as well close down California for business right now.

[luchabee]

I am always entertained when liberals attempt to predict the future on anything. In this case, it was global warming, then aggregate temperatures declined and their models were exposed as complete fraud and fantasy.

Now, it is “global climate change” . . . whatever nebulous standards this is based on–probably what ever happens that year with the weather.

Reminds me of the Obama’s prediction that unemployment would be a 7.5 percent with the stimulus and would be 9.5 without it, with the opposite happening.

Oregon economist: Obama prediction veering off mark

No doubt, the same type of wishful-thinking-never plan-on-unintended-consequences-event would occur here with this law. Isn’t that a great definition for the left? While I won’t get into the inane discussion about how many jobs will be lost because of this law, it is just an additional layer of feel-good emotional regulation that we don’t need in California for something that will have no effect on aggregate “global warming,” which doesn’t even exist.

Also, while I am at it, I bet 99% of the windmill and solar panel lovers advocating for this global warming law and “green jobs” likely will never employ a real person . . . ever.

Liberalism’s incessant drive to create inefficient regulations and tax small business actually creates what liberals say they don’t like, a wider distinction between rich and poor. With these regulations, most of those running businesses either fail (and become poor) or leave the state. So, we are only left with the poor, government workers as the new middle class, and then a few rich. Pretty much California, in a nutshell.

If this law stands, along with the 1099-misc regulation for Obamacare, we might as well close down California for business right now.

[luchabee]

I am always entertained when liberals attempt to predict the future on anything. In this case, it was global warming, then aggregate temperatures declined and their models were exposed as complete fraud and fantasy.

Now, it is “global climate change” . . . whatever nebulous standards this is based on–probably what ever happens that year with the weather.

Reminds me of the Obama’s prediction that unemployment would be a 7.5 percent with the stimulus and would be 9.5 without it, with the opposite happening.

Oregon economist: Obama prediction veering off mark

No doubt, the same type of wishful-thinking-never plan-on-unintended-consequences-event would occur here with this law. Isn’t that a great definition for the left? While I won’t get into the inane discussion about how many jobs will be lost because of this law, it is just an additional layer of feel-good emotional regulation that we don’t need in California for something that will have no effect on aggregate “global warming,” which doesn’t even exist.

Also, while I am at it, I bet 99% of the windmill and solar panel lovers advocating for this global warming law and “green jobs” likely will never employ a real person . . . ever.

Liberalism’s incessant drive to create inefficient regulations and tax small business actually creates what liberals say they don’t like, a wider distinction between rich and poor. With these regulations, most of those running businesses either fail (and become poor) or leave the state. So, we are only left with the poor, government workers as the new middle class, and then a few rich. Pretty much California, in a nutshell.

If this law stands, along with the 1099-misc regulation for Obamacare, we might as well close down California for business right now.

[luchabee]

I am always entertained when liberals attempt to predict the future on anything. In this case, it was global warming, then aggregate temperatures declined and their models were exposed as complete fraud and fantasy.

Now, it is “global climate change” . . . whatever nebulous standards this is based on–probably what ever happens that year with the weather.

Reminds me of the Obama’s prediction that unemployment would be a 7.5 percent with the stimulus and would be 9.5 without it, with the opposite happening.

Oregon economist: Obama prediction veering off mark

No doubt, the same type of wishful-thinking-never plan-on-unintended-consequences-event would occur here with this law. Isn’t that a great definition for the left? While I won’t get into the inane discussion about how many jobs will be lost because of this law, it is just an additional layer of feel-good emotional regulation that we don’t need in California for something that will have no effect on aggregate “global warming,” which doesn’t even exist.

Also, while I am at it, I bet 99% of the windmill and solar panel lovers advocating for this global warming law and “green jobs” likely will never employ a real person . . . ever.

Liberalism’s incessant drive to create inefficient regulations and tax small business actually creates what liberals say they don’t like, a wider distinction between rich and poor. With these regulations, most of those running businesses either fail (and become poor) or leave the state. So, we are only left with the poor, government workers as the new middle class, and then a few rich. Pretty much California, in a nutshell.

If this law stands, along with the 1099-misc regulation for Obamacare, we might as well close down California for business right now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding:

University of California physics professor, resigning from American Physical Society:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/%5B/quote%5D

Luchabee: An amazing letter and from a distinguished academic. It will be interesting to see how the high priests of the climate change movement will attempt to discredit him. He’s certainly not some lunatic fringe crackpot, but he has the temerity to question the “settled science”.

What I find both amusing and alarming at the same time, is the rabid vitriol that spews forth when anyone attempts to ask completely rational questions that any true scientist would accept as part of the empirical process. Watching these attacks, one can’t help be reminded of Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church. How dare you challenge our authority?

Sad to witness this decline, but kudos to Professor Lewis for displaying the courage to write that letter.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding:

University of California physics professor, resigning from American Physical Society:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/%5B/quote%5D

Luchabee: An amazing letter and from a distinguished academic. It will be interesting to see how the high priests of the climate change movement will attempt to discredit him. He’s certainly not some lunatic fringe crackpot, but he has the temerity to question the “settled science”.

What I find both amusing and alarming at the same time, is the rabid vitriol that spews forth when anyone attempts to ask completely rational questions that any true scientist would accept as part of the empirical process. Watching these attacks, one can’t help be reminded of Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church. How dare you challenge our authority?

Sad to witness this decline, but kudos to Professor Lewis for displaying the courage to write that letter.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding:

University of California physics professor, resigning from American Physical Society:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/%5B/quote%5D

Luchabee: An amazing letter and from a distinguished academic. It will be interesting to see how the high priests of the climate change movement will attempt to discredit him. He’s certainly not some lunatic fringe crackpot, but he has the temerity to question the “settled science”.

What I find both amusing and alarming at the same time, is the rabid vitriol that spews forth when anyone attempts to ask completely rational questions that any true scientist would accept as part of the empirical process. Watching these attacks, one can’t help be reminded of Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church. How dare you challenge our authority?

Sad to witness this decline, but kudos to Professor Lewis for displaying the courage to write that letter.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding:

University of California physics professor, resigning from American Physical Society:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/%5B/quote%5D

Luchabee: An amazing letter and from a distinguished academic. It will be interesting to see how the high priests of the climate change movement will attempt to discredit him. He’s certainly not some lunatic fringe crackpot, but he has the temerity to question the “settled science”.

What I find both amusing and alarming at the same time, is the rabid vitriol that spews forth when anyone attempts to ask completely rational questions that any true scientist would accept as part of the empirical process. Watching these attacks, one can’t help be reminded of Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church. How dare you challenge our authority?

Sad to witness this decline, but kudos to Professor Lewis for displaying the courage to write that letter.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=luchabee]Posters have mentioned that big oil is behind this proposition. The same thing can be said for the global warming hysterics as well, who receive billions in funding:

University of California physics professor, resigning from American Physical Society:

‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/%5B/quote%5D

Luchabee: An amazing letter and from a distinguished academic. It will be interesting to see how the high priests of the climate change movement will attempt to discredit him. He’s certainly not some lunatic fringe crackpot, but he has the temerity to question the “settled science”.

What I find both amusing and alarming at the same time, is the rabid vitriol that spews forth when anyone attempts to ask completely rational questions that any true scientist would accept as part of the empirical process. Watching these attacks, one can’t help be reminded of Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church. How dare you challenge our authority?

Sad to witness this decline, but kudos to Professor Lewis for displaying the courage to write that letter.

[sreeb]

I think that 90% of climate scientists have been dishonest. The vast majority by misrepresenting (or not even stating) the level of confidence in their results and predictions. There have also been misrepresentations (the hockey stick for example) that border on outright fraud.

There is also the “divergence problem”. Greatly simplified, the global warming models have predicted significant warming over the past 10 years and it hasn’t happened. If the real world and the model disagree, one of them is wrong. I’m going with the real world being correct. Those predictions of future warming levels are all flawed and can not be trusted.

References to past clean air successes are not relevant. CO2 (at any predicted level) is not a pollutant in the traditional sense. Your quality of life will not improve in any way with lower concentrations.

There is no question that implementation of AB32 will cause energy intensive jobs to migrate to regions that are more governmentally efficient. We may design and develop green energy systems here but the volume manufacture will go elsewhere. Benefits to California are vastly over stated.

AB32 will not make any measurable change to global CO2 emissions. An attempt at a local solution to a (possible) global problem with fail.

[sreeb]

I think that 90% of climate scientists have been dishonest. The vast majority by misrepresenting (or not even stating) the level of confidence in their results and predictions. There have also been misrepresentations (the hockey stick for example) that border on outright fraud.

There is also the “divergence problem”. Greatly simplified, the global warming models have predicted significant warming over the past 10 years and it hasn’t happened. If the real world and the model disagree, one of them is wrong. I’m going with the real world being correct. Those predictions of future warming levels are all flawed and can not be trusted.

References to past clean air successes are not relevant. CO2 (at any predicted level) is not a pollutant in the traditional sense. Your quality of life will not improve in any way with lower concentrations.

There is no question that implementation of AB32 will cause energy intensive jobs to migrate to regions that are more governmentally efficient. We may design and develop green energy systems here but the volume manufacture will go elsewhere. Benefits to California are vastly over stated.

AB32 will not make any measurable change to global CO2 emissions. An attempt at a local solution to a (possible) global problem with fail.

[sreeb]

I think that 90% of climate scientists have been dishonest. The vast majority by misrepresenting (or not even stating) the level of confidence in their results and predictions. There have also been misrepresentations (the hockey stick for example) that border on outright fraud.

There is also the “divergence problem”. Greatly simplified, the global warming models have predicted significant warming over the past 10 years and it hasn’t happened. If the real world and the model disagree, one of them is wrong. I’m going with the real world being correct. Those predictions of future warming levels are all flawed and can not be trusted.

References to past clean air successes are not relevant. CO2 (at any predicted level) is not a pollutant in the traditional sense. Your quality of life will not improve in any way with lower concentrations.

There is no question that implementation of AB32 will cause energy intensive jobs to migrate to regions that are more governmentally efficient. We may design and develop green energy systems here but the volume manufacture will go elsewhere. Benefits to California are vastly over stated.

AB32 will not make any measurable change to global CO2 emissions. An attempt at a local solution to a (possible) global problem with fail.

[sreeb]

I think that 90% of climate scientists have been dishonest. The vast majority by misrepresenting (or not even stating) the level of confidence in their results and predictions. There have also been misrepresentations (the hockey stick for example) that border on outright fraud.

There is also the “divergence problem”. Greatly simplified, the global warming models have predicted significant warming over the past 10 years and it hasn’t happened. If the real world and the model disagree, one of them is wrong. I’m going with the real world being correct. Those predictions of future warming levels are all flawed and can not be trusted.

References to past clean air successes are not relevant. CO2 (at any predicted level) is not a pollutant in the traditional sense. Your quality of life will not improve in any way with lower concentrations.

There is no question that implementation of AB32 will cause energy intensive jobs to migrate to regions that are more governmentally efficient. We may design and develop green energy systems here but the volume manufacture will go elsewhere. Benefits to California are vastly over stated.

AB32 will not make any measurable change to global CO2 emissions. An attempt at a local solution to a (possible) global problem with fail.

[Author]

Posts