[sreeb]

The population isn’t 50M yet and most of the population doesn’t have a job.

There are about 14M private non farm jobs in CA which makes it closer to 4%. I continue to believe the 500K number is self serving crap.

[sreeb]

[quote=deadzone]Why would any big time manager announce their strategy to the world? Not gonna happen.[/quote]

Because he has already fully bought in.

[sreeb]

[quote=deadzone]Why would any big time manager announce their strategy to the world? Not gonna happen.[/quote]

Because he has already fully bought in.

[sreeb]

[quote=deadzone]Why would any big time manager announce their strategy to the world? Not gonna happen.[/quote]

Because he has already fully bought in.

[sreeb]

[quote=deadzone]Why would any big time manager announce their strategy to the world? Not gonna happen.[/quote]

Because he has already fully bought in.

[sreeb]

[quote=deadzone]Why would any big time manager announce their strategy to the world? Not gonna happen.[/quote]

Because he has already fully bought in.

[sreeb]

There aren’t 500K “green energy jobs” in California. How many people do you know who have one? What do you think these people are doing? Filling out surveys about how green they are?

As for Valero, I need the gas they refine so I can drive to work. No one will be better off if those jobs leave the state.

[sreeb]

There aren’t 500K “green energy jobs” in California. How many people do you know who have one? What do you think these people are doing? Filling out surveys about how green they are?

As for Valero, I need the gas they refine so I can drive to work. No one will be better off if those jobs leave the state.

[sreeb]

There aren’t 500K “green energy jobs” in California. How many people do you know who have one? What do you think these people are doing? Filling out surveys about how green they are?

As for Valero, I need the gas they refine so I can drive to work. No one will be better off if those jobs leave the state.

[sreeb]

There aren’t 500K “green energy jobs” in California. How many people do you know who have one? What do you think these people are doing? Filling out surveys about how green they are?

As for Valero, I need the gas they refine so I can drive to work. No one will be better off if those jobs leave the state.

[sreeb]

There aren’t 500K “green energy jobs” in California. How many people do you know who have one? What do you think these people are doing? Filling out surveys about how green they are?

As for Valero, I need the gas they refine so I can drive to work. No one will be better off if those jobs leave the state.

[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