[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.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]I give 5-10 post of reasoned arguments about how AB32 harms the economy. Most of which go unresponded to. I post one flawed study (a agree it is flawed) and you feel license to judge my critical thinking skills.

Post something of value BGIG, I would love to hear how AB32 is a boon to the economy.

Thanks.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.

AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.

As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own.

Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.

And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?

I don’t see AB32 as a stimulus to economy, I see it as insurance policy.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]I give 5-10 post of reasoned arguments about how AB32 harms the economy. Most of which go unresponded to. I post one flawed study (a agree it is flawed) and you feel license to judge my critical thinking skills.

Post something of value BGIG, I would love to hear how AB32 is a boon to the economy.

Thanks.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.

AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.

As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own.

Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.

And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?

I don’t see AB32 as a stimulus to economy, I see it as insurance policy.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]I give 5-10 post of reasoned arguments about how AB32 harms the economy. Most of which go unresponded to. I post one flawed study (a agree it is flawed) and you feel license to judge my critical thinking skills.

Post something of value BGIG, I would love to hear how AB32 is a boon to the economy.

Thanks.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.

AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.

As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own.

Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.

And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?

I don’t see AB32 as a stimulus to economy, I see it as insurance policy.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]I give 5-10 post of reasoned arguments about how AB32 harms the economy. Most of which go unresponded to. I post one flawed study (a agree it is flawed) and you feel license to judge my critical thinking skills.

Post something of value BGIG, I would love to hear how AB32 is a boon to the economy.

Thanks.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.

AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.

As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own.

Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.

And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?

I don’t see AB32 as a stimulus to economy, I see it as insurance policy.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]I give 5-10 post of reasoned arguments about how AB32 harms the economy. Most of which go unresponded to. I post one flawed study (a agree it is flawed) and you feel license to judge my critical thinking skills.

Post something of value BGIG, I would love to hear how AB32 is a boon to the economy.

Thanks.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.

AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.

As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own.

Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.

And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?

I don’t see AB32 as a stimulus to economy, I see it as insurance policy.

[air_ogi]

From the linked study:

Examination of the methods used by the authors leads to the conclusion that these results are highly biased and have no credibility. They are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10 and and may be biased upward by an even greater amount.

I mean, it takes 20 minutes at most to read both studies.

[air_ogi]

From the linked study:

Examination of the methods used by the authors leads to the conclusion that these results are highly biased and have no credibility. They are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10 and and may be biased upward by an even greater amount.

I mean, it takes 20 minutes at most to read both studies.

[air_ogi]

From the linked study:

Examination of the methods used by the authors leads to the conclusion that these results are highly biased and have no credibility. They are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10 and and may be biased upward by an even greater amount.

I mean, it takes 20 minutes at most to read both studies.

[air_ogi]

From the linked study:

Examination of the methods used by the authors leads to the conclusion that these results are highly biased and have no credibility. They are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10 and and may be biased upward by an even greater amount.

I mean, it takes 20 minutes at most to read both studies.

[air_ogi]

From the linked study:

Examination of the methods used by the authors leads to the conclusion that these results are highly biased and have no credibility. They are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10 and and may be biased upward by an even greater amount.

I mean, it takes 20 minutes at most to read both studies.

[Author]

Posts