Proposition 23

[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.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

I can cite plenty of instances where deregulation led to catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill, mining disasters, and almost complete destruction of the economy due to financial deregulation). Can the pro-prop-23 crowd even cite one environmental regulation that led to economic catastrophe?

By the way, those of you that are characterizing this as a liberal-conservative, left-right issue are idiots:

Campaign finance records show that the No campaign has attracted big donations from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, New York hedge fund managers, national environmental groups and green technology executives.

John Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann, have given $2 million to the No campaign. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, donated $500,000 while Lucy Southworth, a Stanford doctoral student and wife of Google co-founder Larry Page, contributed $100,000. Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million.

More than $800,000 has come from activists who work on behalf of low-income communities afflicted by pollution.

Blue Shield of California, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Waste Management and other mainstream corporations have also contributed to the No effort.

This is more accurately characterized as a battle between the ‘green energy’ industry and the old, dirty ‘fossil fuel’ industry. This is a battle between the future (clean, green energy) and the past (think Dick Cheney, Standard Oil, smog so thick you can’t see 50 feet in front of you, an oil spill from 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara that still spews tar balls onto the beach, and destruction of the entire Gulf Coast environment and economy).

If you are in favor of sucking in cancer-causing fumes from companies like BP that destroy entire areas of the country, please vote yes on Prop 23. If you are in favor of keeping California at the forefront of the technological revolution, be sure to vote No on Prop 23.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

I can cite plenty of instances where deregulation led to catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill, mining disasters, and almost complete destruction of the economy due to financial deregulation). Can the pro-prop-23 crowd even cite one environmental regulation that led to economic catastrophe?

By the way, those of you that are characterizing this as a liberal-conservative, left-right issue are idiots:

Campaign finance records show that the No campaign has attracted big donations from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, New York hedge fund managers, national environmental groups and green technology executives.

John Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann, have given $2 million to the No campaign. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, donated $500,000 while Lucy Southworth, a Stanford doctoral student and wife of Google co-founder Larry Page, contributed $100,000. Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million.

More than $800,000 has come from activists who work on behalf of low-income communities afflicted by pollution.

Blue Shield of California, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Waste Management and other mainstream corporations have also contributed to the No effort.

This is more accurately characterized as a battle between the ‘green energy’ industry and the old, dirty ‘fossil fuel’ industry. This is a battle between the future (clean, green energy) and the past (think Dick Cheney, Standard Oil, smog so thick you can’t see 50 feet in front of you, an oil spill from 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara that still spews tar balls onto the beach, and destruction of the entire Gulf Coast environment and economy).

If you are in favor of sucking in cancer-causing fumes from companies like BP that destroy entire areas of the country, please vote yes on Prop 23. If you are in favor of keeping California at the forefront of the technological revolution, be sure to vote No on Prop 23.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

I can cite plenty of instances where deregulation led to catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill, mining disasters, and almost complete destruction of the economy due to financial deregulation). Can the pro-prop-23 crowd even cite one environmental regulation that led to economic catastrophe?

By the way, those of you that are characterizing this as a liberal-conservative, left-right issue are idiots:

Campaign finance records show that the No campaign has attracted big donations from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, New York hedge fund managers, national environmental groups and green technology executives.

John Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann, have given $2 million to the No campaign. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, donated $500,000 while Lucy Southworth, a Stanford doctoral student and wife of Google co-founder Larry Page, contributed $100,000. Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million.

More than $800,000 has come from activists who work on behalf of low-income communities afflicted by pollution.

Blue Shield of California, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Waste Management and other mainstream corporations have also contributed to the No effort.

This is more accurately characterized as a battle between the ‘green energy’ industry and the old, dirty ‘fossil fuel’ industry. This is a battle between the future (clean, green energy) and the past (think Dick Cheney, Standard Oil, smog so thick you can’t see 50 feet in front of you, an oil spill from 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara that still spews tar balls onto the beach, and destruction of the entire Gulf Coast environment and economy).

If you are in favor of sucking in cancer-causing fumes from companies like BP that destroy entire areas of the country, please vote yes on Prop 23. If you are in favor of keeping California at the forefront of the technological revolution, be sure to vote No on Prop 23.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

I can cite plenty of instances where deregulation led to catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill, mining disasters, and almost complete destruction of the economy due to financial deregulation). Can the pro-prop-23 crowd even cite one environmental regulation that led to economic catastrophe?

By the way, those of you that are characterizing this as a liberal-conservative, left-right issue are idiots:

Campaign finance records show that the No campaign has attracted big donations from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, New York hedge fund managers, national environmental groups and green technology executives.

John Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann, have given $2 million to the No campaign. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, donated $500,000 while Lucy Southworth, a Stanford doctoral student and wife of Google co-founder Larry Page, contributed $100,000. Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million.

More than $800,000 has come from activists who work on behalf of low-income communities afflicted by pollution.

Blue Shield of California, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Waste Management and other mainstream corporations have also contributed to the No effort.

This is more accurately characterized as a battle between the ‘green energy’ industry and the old, dirty ‘fossil fuel’ industry. This is a battle between the future (clean, green energy) and the past (think Dick Cheney, Standard Oil, smog so thick you can’t see 50 feet in front of you, an oil spill from 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara that still spews tar balls onto the beach, and destruction of the entire Gulf Coast environment and economy).

If you are in favor of sucking in cancer-causing fumes from companies like BP that destroy entire areas of the country, please vote yes on Prop 23. If you are in favor of keeping California at the forefront of the technological revolution, be sure to vote No on Prop 23.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

I can cite plenty of instances where deregulation led to catastrophe (Gulf Oil Spill, mining disasters, and almost complete destruction of the economy due to financial deregulation). Can the pro-prop-23 crowd even cite one environmental regulation that led to economic catastrophe?

By the way, those of you that are characterizing this as a liberal-conservative, left-right issue are idiots:

Campaign finance records show that the No campaign has attracted big donations from Silicon Valley venture capitalists, New York hedge fund managers, national environmental groups and green technology executives.

John Doerr, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann, have given $2 million to the No campaign. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, donated $500,000 while Lucy Southworth, a Stanford doctoral student and wife of Google co-founder Larry Page, contributed $100,000. Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million.

More than $800,000 has come from activists who work on behalf of low-income communities afflicted by pollution.

Blue Shield of California, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Waste Management and other mainstream corporations have also contributed to the No effort.

This is more accurately characterized as a battle between the ‘green energy’ industry and the old, dirty ‘fossil fuel’ industry. This is a battle between the future (clean, green energy) and the past (think Dick Cheney, Standard Oil, smog so thick you can’t see 50 feet in front of you, an oil spill from 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara that still spews tar balls onto the beach, and destruction of the entire Gulf Coast environment and economy).

If you are in favor of sucking in cancer-causing fumes from companies like BP that destroy entire areas of the country, please vote yes on Prop 23. If you are in favor of keeping California at the forefront of the technological revolution, be sure to vote No on Prop 23.

[KSMountain]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!![/quote]
Word.

[KSMountain]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!![/quote]
Word.

[KSMountain]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!![/quote]
Word.

[KSMountain]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!![/quote]
Word.

[KSMountain]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!![/quote]
Word.

[luchabee]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

In response to your question above, your question is either carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading (e.g., single environmental regulation), and a likely a fallacy of composition, or perhaps you have never run a private business and dealt with the layers of layers of regulation needed to operate a business in California. It is the stacks of regulations and taxes that keep businesses from hiring more poor and working class folks and this is a significant reason why California and American businesses are failing or moving overseas.

Seriously, we probably have a 20% real unemployment rate in California and this is economic suicide.

Besides, as mentioned by other posters, global warming, in my opinion an adult fantasy for the left, is not present and if present this regulation would do nothing to stop it.

In conclusion, it this type of pie-in-the-sky and adolescent thinking advocated by the left that will hopefully lead to their mass removal from office in November.

[luchabee]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

In response to your question above, your question is either carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading (e.g., single environmental regulation), and a likely a fallacy of composition, or perhaps you have never run a private business and dealt with the layers of layers of regulation needed to operate a business in California. It is the stacks of regulations and taxes that keep businesses from hiring more poor and working class folks and this is a significant reason why California and American businesses are failing or moving overseas.

Seriously, we probably have a 20% real unemployment rate in California and this is economic suicide.

Besides, as mentioned by other posters, global warming, in my opinion an adult fantasy for the left, is not present and if present this regulation would do nothing to stop it.

In conclusion, it this type of pie-in-the-sky and adolescent thinking advocated by the left that will hopefully lead to their mass removal from office in November.

[luchabee]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

In response to your question above, your question is either carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading (e.g., single environmental regulation), and a likely a fallacy of composition, or perhaps you have never run a private business and dealt with the layers of layers of regulation needed to operate a business in California. It is the stacks of regulations and taxes that keep businesses from hiring more poor and working class folks and this is a significant reason why California and American businesses are failing or moving overseas.

Seriously, we probably have a 20% real unemployment rate in California and this is economic suicide.

Besides, as mentioned by other posters, global warming, in my opinion an adult fantasy for the left, is not present and if present this regulation would do nothing to stop it.

In conclusion, it this type of pie-in-the-sky and adolescent thinking advocated by the left that will hopefully lead to their mass removal from office in November.

[luchabee]

To the pro-prop 23 crowd: Please cite a single environmental regulation that, after going into effect, caused widespread economic damage. BigOil/BigPollution always whines about the sky falling any time a new environmental regulation is proposed, but has there ever been an environmental reg that caused serious damage to the economy?

In response to your question above, your question is either carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading (e.g., single environmental regulation), and a likely a fallacy of composition, or perhaps you have never run a private business and dealt with the layers of layers of regulation needed to operate a business in California. It is the stacks of regulations and taxes that keep businesses from hiring more poor and working class folks and this is a significant reason why California and American businesses are failing or moving overseas.

Seriously, we probably have a 20% real unemployment rate in California and this is economic suicide.

Besides, as mentioned by other posters, global warming, in my opinion an adult fantasy for the left, is not present and if present this regulation would do nothing to stop it.

In conclusion, it this type of pie-in-the-sky and adolescent thinking advocated by the left that will hopefully lead to their mass removal from office in November.

[Author]

Posts