Sandbox – 3jul15

[While the old sandbox was getting full, the comment thread on the externalities post kind of petered out and segued into looking at the externalities implied by AGW, and then it started circling the old climate change barn again.  A request was made to continue it here – fair enough.

But before diving in one more time, I’d like to point out some strongly orthogonal aspects of discussing climate change cum AGW.  Having ignored or not understood them in the past has led to the predictable Nowhere.  Here’s a partial list –

- Verity of paleo climate records, - Verity of recent – last 50K years – climate measurements,

- Definitions of earth’s atmospheric temperature,

- Definitions of sea levels,

- Data handling methods to create a usable sets of inputs to models,

- Knowledge of climate physics – terrestrial and extra-terrestrial – viz sub-processes and their large scale integration (e.g. the earth’s carbon cycle, cosmic rays impact on cloud cover),

- General Circulation Models (GCMs) – their design, programming, and testing,

- Validating GCMs – data sets used, performance criteria, selection/tuning of model constants, sub-model transfer functions and stabilities (bifurcations to chaos), sensitivity to inputs, …

- Interpretation of GCM outputs – obtaining reliable variance measures, accept/reject criteria, …

- Understanding the impact of human interventions on climate (let alonge AGW).

In a reasonable world (not the one we live in), debating climate change between people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems), and those who don’t is not possible.  One side can cite and interpret the technical literature, and other side can only appeal to ‘consensus science’ or my scientist(s) are smarter than your scientist(s).  Nevertheless, in today’s world such debates are exciting, important, and even fun – each side viewing the other as unredeemable troglodytes.   When the participants are tired of finally insulting the quality of their opponents’ double helixes, and the debate “is heard no more: it (was again) a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, nevertheless but advising public policies penned by grossly ignorant and hubristic central planners.  Have at it.  gjr]

Comments

[Steven Frisch]

Well, let me be the first to say I'm just not into it because it goes nowhere :)

That is not a concession of the science, merely an acknowledgement that no progress can be made here. I will save my effort for the California legislature where I am winning.

[George Rebane]

StevenF 907am - and with your philosophy and understanding you are correct in doing that. The California legislature long ago abandoned the science of climate change in its legislation on the matter. You see, not only can "no progress be made here", it was long since any progress was made in Sacramento on the issue. RR is just the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm.

[Todd Juvinall]

Steve Frisch at 1:48 AM or some such ungodly hour wrote this on the last sandbox,

"That way if people want to hear Russ and Greg call me a rent seeker, or pontificate about how much smarter they are because they went to Harvey Mudd University, or how much more they know because they are some sort of scientists esconsced on the back porches of Nevada County, or argue over how big Jeff's truck is, or laugh when Bill tell fart jokes, or stay quiet while Todd cites anecdotal media reports that he appears to have not even read or watched himself, there is a place for it.

The "sandbox" is where your freak flags can fly my friends. It is designed for exactly such ephemera. "

What the reader can see and read from this fellow is the classic liberal attack on those he disagrees with. The liberal denies he does this even when confronted wth their own words. Is it any wonder there is a "great divide" in America??

So, when this fellow on the left pontificates, you can now disregard him. Just not a believable person and his credentials are minimal. Like we used to say, he is a "jack of all trades and a master of none". That is the bottom line.

Now he says he is winning in the California Legislature and government. Yes, he is, as we see freedom removed for individuals and government power increasing exponentially here. How a liberal can say they are compassionate and caring for the less fortunate and then back and impose tax policies and penalties on the less fortunate is beyond comprehension. California has a huge share of poor and this liberal's policies are stealing their money in the form of "cap and trade" energy penalties. So, what to do? Food or AC? Drive to work or food? If you all want to see the results of the kinds of policies Mr. Frisch is helping ram down the throats of the poor and fragile, look at Greece or Zimbabwe. Not a pretty site.

[Joe Koyote]

"debating climate change between people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems), and those who don’t is not possible. One side can cite and interpret the technical literature, and other side can only appeal to ‘consensus science’ or my scientist(s) are smarter than your scientist(s). "

George, don't you think this is kind of self-defeating, at least for the deniers? If all of the rest of us non-hard science folks aren't capable of understanding the issues or data, then all we have to go with are the odds. If 97% of science (ie. people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) tells us the climate is changing due to human involvement (i.e.. pollution, deforestation, and/or whatever), it makes the denial side of the argument seem to be more influenced by ideologically than "science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)". The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the 97%, so what is the argument really about? The issues around climate change, the progressives would argue, threaten the very existence of the corporate model of capitalist economics. So why wouldn't the energy industry adopt the "denial" model used by the tobacco industry for decades to deflect the truth about tobacco products, in a similar campaign to protect their investment? And why would republicans (commonly associated with big business) be far more likely to be deniers, if ideology weren't a factor.

There is far more to the climate change debate than science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) that perhaps gets left out of the conversation when the focus is narrowed to the science only.

[Todd Juvinall]

Global warming was created from whole cloth as a political tool. The left couldn't sell it, the computer models were bogus and the emails between the AGW conspirators were uncovered. It is only a political tool for control. Communists have a amazing way of gaining control through subterfuge. But we who have always known the truth cannot be be muted.

[George Rebane]

JoeK 1135am - No doubt there is and has been "far more to the climate change debate than science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)", but we have to always keep in the forefront that the truth values of all Climate Change Propositions are fundamentally determinants of science. Belief in 'climate change' is a multi-dimensional undertaking. I have listed what may be considered the prime set of CCPs here -
http://sesf.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/the_question_of.html

And each of them has to be accepted as TRUE before any subsequent public policy is to be based on reason.

An interesting thing to note is that when skeptics present data and information from the literature, the True Believers reply with consensus science, i.e. no science at all. The fraction of IPCC scientists is very small, of who understand even a small fraction of the points I raised in my intro above. When they have been individually interviewed, they freely admit that their contributions was small and focused, and many are not even apprised of how their specialized work got integrated into the overall report. So to claim that the consensus of this science reaches into the "97%" level is a specious argument more at home with demogauges and politicians who depend on their talking to gruberized audiences.

[Todd Juvinall]

I wonder how they came to the 97% anyway. Let's see, there are how many scientists on planet earth?

[Russ]

[email protected]:11PM

Go to Watts Up With That and type in 97% in the Search block. You will find over 40 posts refuting the 97% scientific consensus. Here is a quote from one example by Jo Nova:

As Tol explains, the Cook et al paper used an unrepresentative sample, can’t be replicated, and leaves out many useful papers. The study was done by biased observers who disagreed with each other a third of the time, and disagree with the authors of those papers nearly two-thirds of the time. About 75% of the papers in the study were irrelevant in the first place, with nothing to say about the subject matter. Technically, we could call them “padding”. Cook himself has admitted data quality is low. He refused to release all his data, and even threatened legal action to hide it. (The university claimed it would breach a confidentiality agreement. But in reality, there was no agreement to breach.) As it happens, the data ended up being public anyhow. Tol refers to an “alleged hacker” but, my understanding is that no hack took place, and the “secret” data, that shouldn’t have been a secret, was left on an unguarded server. The word is “incompetence”, and the phrase is “on every level”.

The hidden timestamps of raters revealed one person rated 675 abstracts in 72 hours, with much care and lots of rigor, I’m sure. It also showed that the same people collected data, analyzed results, collected more data, changed their classification system, and went on to collect even more data. This is a hopelessly unscientific process prone to subjective bias and breaches the most basic rules of experimental design. Tol found the observations changed with each round, so the changes were affecting the experiment. Normal scientists put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment, run it, and then analyze. When scientists juggle these steps, the results influence the testing. It’s a process someone might use if they wanted to tweak the experiment to get a specific outcome. We can’t know the motivations of researchers, but there is a reason good scientists don’t use this process.

My problem with taking the Cook paper seriously is that it is so wholly, profoundly, unscientific from beginning to end that it’s hard to muster any mental effort to unpack a pointless study that will never tell us anything about the atmosphere on Earth.

So, we have Joe Koyote supporting a totally discredited study. He and thousands of other progressives, including some of our legislators in Sacramento. This is the kind of science that the left uses to make the public policy that Steven Frisch supports in Sacramento. Much of AB32 was based on the IPCC report that relied on Michael Mann's hockey stick. Again, public policy being made based on flawed science, policy that is supported by Steven Frisch, and that is why he refuses to engage in the discussion, as he knows that the whole AGW argument is based on flawed science. Science flaws that he cannot explain away.

[Gregory]

"That way if people want to hear Russ and Greg call me a rent seeker, or pontificate about how much smarter they are because they went to Harvey Mudd University[sic], or how much more they know because they are some sort of scientists [sic] esconsced on the back porches of Nevada County, or argue over how big Jeff's truck is..."

That was one big mudball from the usual suspect. Doug Keachie was the first to use my education against me, and Steve,the polisci guy from CalState Frisco, picked it right up. Steve, I've known calstate physics majors and while the only incompetent physics prof I ever observed was at CalState LA, most all their declared majors would have hacked it just fine at another top school like UCLA. But I've never met a polisci major who could hack a real science.

Also, there never was an argument over how big the FUE's truck is; it's a huge gas hog... but neither Pelline nor any of his buddies want to take the man (?) on for the glaring hypocrisy of driving such a behemoth while posting such hate filled propaganda against "deniers"... As if the rhetoric was sufficient as a climate indulgence forgiving the latest dun.

[Todd Juvinall]

Russ 1:11 PM.

Thanks I'll check the links. I suppose the "consensus" or "polling" results are there as well? And the underlying questions? 97%. Wow!

AB32 is making modern day Californians into slaves. The poor now must beg for help where before they were able to make it on their own. AB32 and "cap and trade" are impacting costs all the way from digging a hole to the finished product. While the AB32 hoaxers fly around in jets burning huge amounts of "carbon" on the way to "summits" to discuss "carbon" we all just shake our heads at their hypocrisy.

The SBC trip to China to see how well those commies are making the things we buy from them must have been quite the "carbon" polluter. As long as the elites thumb heir noses at the poor they are now screwing with higher utility and gas bills, no one I know will ever buy in to the hoax.

[Todd Juvinall]

For all those liberals who think the Second Amendment is only for having no gun or only one in the house. Here is a former gal from CNN who along with her hubby killed a scumbag in a robbery attempted on them. In New Mexico. Both husband and wife have conceal/carry permits. Scumbag dead, hubby shot three times and recovering.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-identify-motel-intruder-shot-ex-cnn-reporter-143055852.html

[Gregory]

"If 97% of science (ie. people who understand the science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems) tells us the climate is changing due to human involvement (i.e.. pollution, deforestation, and/or whatever), it makes the denial side of the argument seem to be more influenced by ideologically than "science, math, and modeling (of complex, stochastic, dynamic systems)". The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the 97%, so what is the argument really about?"

Few actual surveys have been made; the one (1) I know of was the American Meteorological Society's survey of their professional membership (the ones with degrees in things like meteorology and atmospheric physics) last year. only 52% believed there was significant warming that was mostly due to mankind over the last century. The first "study" I am aware of that found 97/98% was Doran & Zimmerman... they invited 10,000 earth scientists to take an anonymous survey, something like 3300 took it... and to get 97.4% they threw out all but 79 surveys and only two questions made the cut... has it gotten warmer since the little ice age and did mankind have a significant influence? 77 of 79 answered both yes,which are also my answers and I've been a scoffer since 2007.

The alarmist crowd wanted their take to be on par with evolution and went out to prove it; competent scientists would have known it was a lie but I can't take Doran, Zimmerman, Oreskes(!) or Cook et al. as competent scientists.
(Continued...)

[Jon]

Todd, re: AB32,
Slaves? LOL. Right. Its Governor Brown's signature achievement and will go down in American history as a great milestone. If AB32 is so terrible for folks, how do explain the fact my electric PGE bill has gone DOWN this year compared to last summer, even with a much hotter summer so far? Down about 20% over last summer.

[George Rebane]

For the mid-road reader, please note the above as standard fare in the climate debate. The skeptics reply in the detailed treatment of the issues citing reports and names of guilty parties. Try to find a True Believer who dares venture out of their Consensus Castle and actually do battle by citing the scientific merits or the professional credentials of skeptics. Any such attempts in the past have always resulted in an intellectual pummeling that caused such a brave TB to quickly scuttle back behind their thick walls where the ramparts are securely manned by a like-minded Consensus Chorus.

You will quickly see that this debate has always been conducted on two planes, and the reason for that is that the voting audience is long gruberized.

[George Rebane]

re Jon 320pm - for those actually seeking an explanation.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Templates/Default.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b77CD5FC8-B9B3-4A38-8C28-A791BFCF18B9%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fPUC%2fenergy%2fcapandtrade%2fclimatecreditfaq%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#WhatIsIt

The answers there consist of energy price controls imposed on the utilities. But the real contribution to lower electricity bills is that oil and gas prices have plummeted during the past year thanks to production on private lands and leases, which production the federal government has done everything to hinder while Obama takes full credit for increasing supplies and lowering prices. Sites like the link above dare saying nothing about such actualities, and note that neither does their local chorus.

[Steven Frisch]

Wow, I mean wow.

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 09:46 AM

I guess I should say that I don't think anyone here is really in a position to be judging the Godliness any one else's sleeping habits are they?

Not to mention the fact that of course Todd and Greg did exactly what I said they would do, come over to the Sandbox to let their freak flags fly--for them the freak flag means fight--because they do like to fight don't they--go right to the core boys, get your Ya, Ya's out, the Sandbox is where you shadow box ghosts.

Oh, and I may have reach Todd but I'm not responsible for Greece or Zimbabwe.

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 11:58 AM
And no, people who do not toe your line are not "Communists"

Posted by: Gregory | 03 July 2015 at 01:24 PM

Ah Greg, it is you who have contended that laypeople are incapable of understanding science and lack the credentials to make rational decisions about the veracity of science, pretty consistently I might add, which would mean by the way that NO ONE here would have the ability to read scientific papers (which some of us do on a regular basis) and draw any rational conclusions. It is you who continuously brings Poli Sci and Rhetoric into the equation and implies that only you are educated enough to understand science.

And seriously, talk about derivative nonsense, the only one responsible for the choice of what vehicle to buy is the one who bought the vehicle. I never brought up vehicles you did.

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 01:44 PM

Ah, and the Red Herring is pulled out again. Frisch went to China....oh my God he must be a Commie....and every allegation that the tax payers must have paid for it...and that I must have visited the Mausoleum (I did :) and every other boogey man of completely irrelevant quackery that can be brought up. Of course Todd has never presented one shred of evidence for anything...he just wants to imply some sort of wrong doing to muddy the waters. Guess what Todd, Nixon went to China, Jobs went to China, millions of Americans have gone to China. I went to Mongolia too, and I would go to Cuba in a heartbeat just have not been there yet. What's next are you going to analyze the Pope's travel schedule?

Ah, the Sandbox....fools and ephemera....made for each other.

[George Rebane]

Boy, it is hard to have you guys let go of the inter-personal exchanges - 'he hit me first!' rules the day.

I do believe that the best way to drop revisiting the science credentials of commenters or the general public is to abandon consensus arguments and just stick to the science of the matter. The presented arguments will illustrate the commenters credentials and keep everyone on topic.

Consensus arguments are famous in science for their ludicrous nature. We all know the stories of pre-Renaissance science in stasis, and the consensus arguments used by the Church. The last, and most famous one in our era was Einstein's response to the Berlin Polytechnic (if I correctly recall) that informed him that the consensus of listed scientists repudiated relativity. He famously answered that a consensus of many was not required, just one scientist with a valid repudiation would be sufficient to destroy relativity. Such a scientist could not be found.

I extend the invitation here to repudiate the skeptics on the science and not the consensus - else the skeptics stand and can be vanquished only by force as was Galileo by the Church.

[Todd Juvinall]

The lib doth protest too much. Looks like I hit the right nerves for the guilty conscience of the libs here. You readers can judge for yourselves. If it walks, talks and looks like a commie duck, it must be one. How one can praise the wonders of the Red Chinese commies and the Castro brothers and their "economic policies" as soMe sort of wonderful thing is beyond me. J

Rather than letting the resident liberals get this mired down in the weeds like they always do, just look at the poor in California being negatively affected by AB32. Higher fuel fees and taxes for nothing but a feel good for the libs. Food or gas, for the car to get to work? Hmmm. It is all a liberal plan to control all aspects of ones life. And this is from the self proclaimed "progressives" who claim to be looking out for the little people. Ever heard of such a scam? The left is the new oligarchy.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 425pm - you could also/instead ask a member of the loyal opposition to expound on the benefits of AB32, and then dismantle that.

[Todd Juvinall]

True, I thought that was already being done though. Actually the whole AB32 ploy was "greenhouse gases" by people affecting "climate change". Seems the Chinese air pollution is now detected here and it is worse than anything domestic. Maybe AB32 penalties on our utility's can be traded to the Chinese for a few Ipads?

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 July 2015 at 04:25 PM

I am assuming you are talking about Julian and Joaquin Castro. I would be happy to praise them. Julian is going to probably be your next Vice President so I suggest you start learning Spanish hombre.

[Todd Juvinall]

You mean that commie Mayor from San Antonio? Social justice guy? OK, yep I see he is your guy.

[Jon]

Can someone cite the higher fuel prices this summer in CA which are destroying the dreams of CA poor?,

Lets see...OK, July 2015 vs. same time summer 2014 when AB32 provisions were not fully in effect. What...that looks to be just about a 30% reduction! And the electric bills are LOWER too as I mentioned. How can that be? How is it possible? I thought AB32 is killing the poor- Todd just said so. And he used to be an elected official even!

http://www.sactogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

[Todd Juvinall]

High unemployment, millions on welfare yep, you should be proud of what you have helped bring to the State.

[Jon]

All due to AB32. Exactly Todd. You are talking about AB32, and my point remains...there is not a shred of evidence that it has hurt a single poor person since its inception.

Yes, am proud to be a Californian and am proud to be living here during this term of Jerry Brown, a true elder statesman if there ever was one. A very courageous and insightful guy. Not perfect by a longshot. Have questions about the bullet train financing and state pension obligations, like everyone else. But almost all the priorities for the future are being attended to very nicely.

[Todd Juvinall]

Have you kept track of the state's unemployment levels? How about business starts and BK's? Apparently you have no clue about economics.

[Don Bessee]

Why then does CA have the highest poverty rate?

[Jon]

Again boys, where is the data which points to AB32 as factor in CA unemployment and poverty levels?

Simplistic rhetoric is really nice for ranting, but not much else.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jon, AB32 is certainly part of the problem with the economy. Why can't you admit it? The straw that broke the camel's back. Jeeze libs are dense.

[Bill Tozer]

Well, Happy 3rd of July. May be off topic, but the "why can't we see it the way they do" rolls on. Todd, don't be so dense. You don't get it cause youse ain't got none of them thar Frisco values. I just love Frisco Values, don't you?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-San-Francisco-Pier/2015/07/03/id/653403/

[joe smith]

The people who deny climate change tend to be the same who deny evolution and portend that that the earth is 6,000 years old. I hang my hat on evidence based science and not on faith based rhetoric.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Care to compare the unemploymnent numbers when the Scrub left office in 08 to today.

[Don Bessee]

Nice duck the 'jon' but I think everyone knows it in reply to the grandpa jerry valentine @635 lol

[Jack Cominsky]

Amid all of the acrimonious debate over the legitimacy of AGW, I tend to agree more with the opinions of the late George Carlin than any of the so-called "experts"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

[Jon]

Paul,
Todd and cohorts cannot find a single, solitary piece of data showing the negative impact of AB32. But yet again, Todd doubles down even when he loses a debate. All I want to see is some data on AB32's negative impacts, but alas nothing. Todd, you lost on this one. Move on to your next topic.

[George Rebane]

Jon 1031pm - We all know the parameters of California's economic decline and middle class exodus. What kind of specific evidence are you looking for when AB32 regulations and taxes hit broad based markets? You seem to be among those progressives who claim that economic activity is independent of tax rates. Is that true?

JackC 1028pm - thanks for letting us see Carlin again. The man says it so well.

[Bill Tozer]

More Frisco Values. I wish they would have gone ahead and tore it down 2 years ago. That would have kicked their harebrained ideas back 30 years. Mr. Frisco Values, tear down this wall.

http://www.hetchhetchy.org

[Gregory]

"Ah Greg, it is you who have contended that laypeople are incapable of understanding science and lack the credentials to make rational decisions about the veracity of science, pretty consistently I might add, which would mean by the way that NO ONE here would have the ability to read scientific papers (which some of us do on a regular basis) and draw any rational conclusions. It is you who continuously brings Poli Sci and Rhetoric into the equation and implies that only you are educated enough to understand science."

I'm not responsible for your loose and ugly caricatures of past thoughts of mine Steve, and after years of reading your screeds I cannot remember even one instance of you ever making an scientific argument... not just a parroting of factoids (rare enough) but a reasoned case showing some evidence of sentience on your part.

It may be hard to accept, but people with degrees in subjects like chemistry, physics, math and engineering really do know more about the physical world than most others. If you really have studied on your own, show some evidence of it and discuss the bloody science rather than repeats of the same old false ad homs but as long as you "hate my guts" there's probably not much hope for you... that would be playing on my turf, and George's.

And I'll say this again... "denier" is hate speech, pure and simple. Drop it.

[Michael R. Kesti]

Paul Emery 03Jul15 10:10 PM

They say that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics but unemployment statistics top them all.

[Jon]

George, 10:55PM,
First off, Happy 4th of July. Much to celebrate and be thankful for in America. Enjoy the fairground activities today.

re: AB32, and as you are implying, there are obviously a multitude of factors impacting economic activity, and CA is the most complex, most diversified entity of economic activity to ever study. To just throw AB32 out there and state emphatically and absolutely that it has created negative impacts on economic activity is a lazy, ideologically based conclusion. I could conclude just as easily that Brown's tax increase on high income has been an immense positive for our fiscal situation in the state. I would say there is more evidence that it has been a positive economic impact.
We are way too early in the AB32 game to conclude anything, and you guys have correctly found no direct evidence of its impact, one way or another.

[drivebyposter]

"Care to compare the unemploymnent numbers when the Scrub left office in 08 to today."

Shrub?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/12/Labor%20Force%201.jpg

I can't say that giving a President (or a dominant party in Congress) credit for being a prime mover in the employment rate is a particularly worthwhile or accurate goal. It does make for a better story, though.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 04 July 2015 at 12:35 AM

As I have said many times I would gladly engage you in a scientific debate in an appropriately and fairly managed debate.

I and others have attempted to do that in the past only to be told by you that we lack the understanding and experience to engage in a scientific debate. I even offered a format where we could bring actual scientific expertise to the table and conduct such a debate in public using actual rules. Frankly, my contacts in the climate science community would probably love the opportunity, but only in a format where climate deniers like you could not grandstand.

On this forum the issue can not be addressed because you actually don't accept "scientific' arguments.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: drivebyposter | 04 July 2015 at 07:46 AM

Let me see if I have the correct driveby; you would not give government the credit for a positive employment picture but you would give it blame for a negative employment picture?

[Gregory]

Frisch, your appeals to authority, past and present, do not count as scientific arguments, and my recollections of the past do not mesh with yours. Perhaps, if you could actually fit out a link or two to actual exchanges you feel raw about, some enlightenment could occur.

[George Rebane]

Jon 741am - thank you, and the rest of the day to you and yours.

I believe your error re AB32 and other such burdens government puts on us is what in economics has come to be known as ‘that which is seen and that which is not seen’, perhaps most clearly illustrated by Bastiat in his ‘Broken Window’ (1850) dissertation. Here are a couple of links to it.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

Locally the late businessman Lowell Robinson testified before many elected bodies and unelected commissions about the unseen impact of AB32 on California’s business community and ergo its economy. Robinson Enterprises operates machinery and heavy equipment which uses various forms of energy to power them. Robinson pointed out that AB32 has a number of arcane yet specific strictures it imposes on businesses operating such equipments which range from having to retire entire fleets of diesel trucks to costly replacement of internal parts of pumps, generators, and power tools that CARB deems will then make such operations environmentally friendly and significantly slow down global warming.

All of these compliance actions take money directly out a business, monwy that it could now not spend for expansion, purchase of new equipment, or hire more workers. That was the part neither seen by the public nor understood by the progressive central planners. Their easily defeatable argument that additional jobs would created to support AB32 compliance has never pencilled out or successfully competed with the businessman’s own alternative plans for the use of such monies. Were that not the case then it would be an easy matter to grow economies through nothing but the imposition of even more costly bureaucratic mandates. Nations that have tried that have either failed or live on in destitution as failed states. (I also point you to the naif’s article in the 4jul15 Union exhorting the US to follow the path of ever more struggling socialist nations of the EU.)

Perhaps the greatest hubris of the progressive is that distant bureaucrats know better the operation of businesses, and can therefore foster their greater success through mandating one-size-fits-all regulations that remove/redirect monies which the businesses had intended for their own plans. And moreover, that taking additional monies from an enterprise does not affect its plan forward or opportunities for success.

[Gregory]

"On this forum the issue can not be addressed because you actually don't accept "scientific' arguments."

Until March 2007 I accepted AGW as a problem based on accounts, in newspapers and lay oriented periodicals such as SciAm,of IPCC-brand science. It was scientific arguments that brought me to my current understanding, and the science behind clouds and aerosols, the core of that 2007 epiphany, has solidified greatly since then.

There's a 540 million year record of ocean temps correlating beautifully with galactic cosmic ray flux as our solar system orbits the galactic center of mass, and the geochemist who developed that dataset was expecting to find a correlation with co2 but that was not in evidence.

Perhaps one of the science autodidacts can chime in. A paper to read first might be "Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?" by Shaviv and Veizer (2003).

[George Rebane]

re the Goodknight/Frisch global warming debate.

This longstanding proposal will not serve its intended resolution of the issue. Elsewhere in these pages I have made the case against it. There is a reason that public debates about arcane technical issues are not popular. When attempted, they always wind up playing to the peanut gallery of an uninformed (uninformable?) audience. And the words of the participants are ephemeral, of the moment, and play more on the emotional response to the turn of a phrase than to the substance of the matter.

A much better approach is to have the debaters deliver their arguments and rebuttals in writing within an agreed exchange format. Then the readers will have the ability to view 'stable arguments' colored neither by their method nor moment of delivery. The debate as proposed will be an inevitable circus from which both participants will exit beating their chests claiming victory. And most deplorably there will be no opportunity for a reasonable post-mortem dissection of presented arguments.

RR will gladly serve as the venue for publishing such a debate should its putative participants agree.

(I for one would be most eager to see Mr Frisch's dissertation on the relevant science of the matter. BTW, I was told that Mr Frisch posted a link on another blog to a youtube that was claimed to devastate a consevratarian's "denial of global warming". I take it that the referent conservatarian is me. I invite the link being posted here, so that we can make short work of it. )

[Jon]

George, I fully understand your argument. Yes there are costs of compliance of AB32. I know you hate this term, but I believe the greater good served by an improvement in air quality must be accounted for as well. All of this is led by elected officials, then implemented by bureaucrats. Yes, many of them are unyielding and frustrating to deal with. I do wish there were more opportunities for appeals in many regulatory matters, of course we would agree there. But the positive impacts vs. costs was the entire core of the AB32 argument a few years ago. I think people like the late Mr. Robinson simply didn't believe we can make a tangible difference in air quality and carbon reduction through changing the status quo. Many people of good will did believe we could make a difference. Interesting that my direct observation, and study of the data, is that our Ozone problems in the western County have vastly improved since imposition of some of these regulations. Here in our area, I remember dozens of days of unhealthy air in NC 5-10 years ago, now its a handful of unhealthy days in the last few years. Even with the heat we have seen since June this year. I think Gretchen Bennet has commented on this as well. And personally when I run my mowers and cutters, I am very thankful they are CARB compliant in CA.

[George Rebane]

Jon 1043am - all regs have compliance costs, and that in itself is not the reason to "hate" any regulation per se. The reason that I and others like me are repelled by AB32 is that there is no measurable evidence of its delivering the environmental benefit for which it was devised and implemented, notwithstanding its punishment of CA's economy. The fact that it would not measurably improve our environment was known before AB32 came to pass, and has been confirmed since then. The atmospheric physics simply don't support any such claims. The only objectives that imposition of AB32 serves, and serves well are those gathered under UN's world vision in Agenda21, which is a reasonable conclusion as to why it was introduced.

Jon, when we come down to it, AB32 is just one of many battles waged by today's opposites of the Great Divide. If we truly wanted to reconcile our differences, we would have to penetrate their meta layers to a place wherein we present each other our widely different understandings of how this universe works and informs the conduct of its sentient, and perhaps sapient, earthlings. Till then we will be talking past each other, while convinced that the other is some amalgam of stupid and evil.

[Russ]

[email protected]:43AM

Can you please explain the scientific connection between CO2 reduction, the goal of AB-32 and Ozone reduction in California? When I met with the staff at the Air Quality District, they could not explain the connection, since you seem to know of one can you please explain. There are several economic and political connections, fewer carbon fueled cars on the road is one, but the science connection between CO2 emissions and the chemistry of Ozone creation seems to be lost in the fog of environmentalism.

[Todd Juvinall]

I ran into this on the UK Guardian.

" Do trees pollute the atmosphere?

Tim Radford

Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," he opined. A little later, environmental scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right. In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes - two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate. "

[Bill Tozer]

George Rebane @ 11:02 on the 4th of July

"Till then we will be laking past each other, while convinced that the other is some amalgam of stupid and evil."

True. The other side is evil. Stupid? Nah, just clever and sly as a fox and unable to speak with straight tongue. Sheep in wolves' clothing. Evil? Judging solely the results, the answer is an arousing Yea. I don't have to be convinced. The other side is evil through and through.. Quite Stoopid? Perhaps, speaking generally. Ignorant would be more accurate for the disciples of the cult. Mama Gump says stupid is as stupid does. But, if one knows the reality and proceeds to deceive just like the other side's leadership, then that is more evil than plain ole run of the mill libbutt stupid.
Why do the evil, cunning, and stupid other side refuse to believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Now that is stupid and evil.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 July 2015 at 12:42 PM

Well yeah, if one only looked at one half of the carbon cycle, which is like looking at one half of an equation, trees emit hydrocarbon. But trees also capture, sequester and sink carbon.

[Todd Juvinall]

Go argue with Mr. Radford

[Russ]

For those interested in California's troposphere ozone issues I invite their attentions to the following paper: The Physics and Chemistry of Ozone

Here is a short excerpt:

1.3 Effect of Vegetation on Ozone Concentrations

California's varied ecosystems interact with emissions related to human activity to influence ozone concentrations. Certain desert species, oaks, and pines emit substantial amounts of highly reactive VOCs, called biogenic emissions. Vegetation can either increase or decrease the ambient ozone concentration as the result of complex processes briefly described below.

Vegetation can reduce ozone concentrations by providing cooling and by removing pollutants. The shade provided by trees lowers ozone concentrations in several ways. It reduces the pollutant emissions from many sources (such as less evaporation of fuel from cooler parked vehicles). By cooling homes and offices, tree shade lowers emissions associated with electricity generation because less power is needed for air conditioning. In addition, cooling reduces the speed of chemical reactions in ambient air that lead to the formation of ozone.

Vegetation can also enhance the removal of ozone through deposition on plant surfaces. The surfaces of leaves and pine needles allow for deposition of ozone and NO2. Several different factors affect pollutant removal, such as how long a parcel of air is in contact with the leaf, and the total leaf area available for deposition. Also, rain tends to reduce ambient ozone concentrations by washing out atmospheric gases as well as gases deposited on leaves and needles.

Other processes involving vegetation can lead to higher concentrations of ozone. For example, trees and other types of vegetation emit biogenic VOCs, such as isoprene, pinenes, and terpenoid compounds. These biogenic VOCs can react with NOx emitted from sources such as cars and power plants to form ozone. Many biogenic VOCs are highly reactive (i.e., especially efficient in reacting to form ozone); some VOCs are even more efficient in forming ozone than those emitted from cars and power plants. In addition, VOCs can be emitted from decomposing leaves. [My Emphasis]

Please note, when reading the paper, the primary Ozone forming chemicals are volatile organic compounds, not CO2. If you down load a copy of AB-32 to a PDF readers and search for the term ozone, it does not appear in the document.

When the CARB Chairwoman, Mary Nichols came to Nevada City to speak, she tried to convince the audience that AB-32 was necessary to preserve the health of Californians by reducing CO2, which caused the formation of Ozone. Bunk science. The prime goal of AB-32 was to reduce the number of vehicle on the road, the secondary goal was wealth redistribution. It was crafted on bunk science, however it is achieving it secondary goal wealth distribution. It is failing the primary goal of reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled, we have more people and more vehicles on the road now than when the legislations was implemented. Yet, ozone pollution is down 60%, how can that be? It is due to the advent of catalytic converters, which reduce the other critical element to troposphere ozone, nitric oxide. The key Ozone elements are nitric oxide, VOCs and sunlight. No role for CO2, so why do CARB and the Progressives continue to try to link Ozone to AB-32? They need a scare tactic to justify the economic impact of AB-32. They just could not sell the public that CO2 was bad when they exhaled it with every breath, and plants cannot live with out it. So, the Ozone boggy man was created to come to CARB's rescue. They should have written it in to AB-32.

[Gregory]

"I for one would be most eager to see Mr Frisch's dissertation on the relevant science of the matter. BTW, I was told that Mr Frisch posted a link on another blog to a youtube that was claimed to devastate a consevratarian's "denial of global warming".

It already was, George.

His link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&list=PL471791D679B25440&index=3

In short, he cites a climate blogger (BA Fine Arts) who mischaracterized the evidence and the argument of the time (the late oughts) while Frisch missed the sideways movement of temperatures since then.

I dismantled it here:
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/07/a-look-at-externalities.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c7a8e3eb970b#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c7a8e3eb970b

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. Steele @ 3:20 pm
Excellent job, sir, of exposing the face of evil. Have they no shame? Excellent job as well, sir, of revealing the true believers' stupidity. Are they just lost, lost in the fog, or lost in the in the ozone again? Perhaps it is what they are consuming that makes things look so fuzzy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=heK8QjhWGag

[Gregory]

Browsing, I found Frisch's RR comment with the video link:

http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/06/sandbox-28jun15.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c7a8b1af970b#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad883301b7c7a8b1af970b

No Steve, it isn't cherrypicking to notice that, with the satellite and radiosonde datasets, there has been no statistically significant warming for quite some time. I suggest you look at the RSS climate page to see how convincingly measured temps have diverged from the GCM predictions.

[Todd Juvinall]

I suspected the extent of his "science" knowledge was a series of Youtube videos and Family Guy episodes.

[drivebyposter]

"Let me see if I have the correct driveby; you would not give government the credit for a positive employment picture but you would give it blame for a negative employment picture? "

I'm not blaming it for anything. Is government policy a cause or effect of something else (or both)?

I can think of a laundry list of things that might alter the employment rate, but no predictive model that explains it (if you have one, drop a line to a hedge fund manager and he'll make it worth your while).

I expect professional economists to be charlatans to a large degree, but I doubt that even they will fall into the just-so story notion of simply assigning economic facts to the party of a President (Krugman excepted, perhaps).

[Gregory]

A note to skeptics patting themselves on the back for being so smart... I've no doubt many arrived at what I expect to be on the correct side purely because their politics matched. Same as the warmistas.

[Bill Tozer]

Way, way off topic and thread, but no where else can this breaking news be placed. This is a case pure and simple that needs more regulation. They need to build a better mouse trap or pay some hefty fines. There ought to be a law!

http://www.theonion.com/article/study-us-wastes-2-million-hours-annually-figuring--50764

[Bill Tozer]

Nothing new under the sun. Do as ordered and pay more. Don't follow orders and pay dearly as well. Heads they win, tails you lose.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-water-rates-rise-cities-lose-money-drought

[George Rebane]

Gregory 507pm - Now that I've seen the video, and understand how it forms Mr Frisch's confidence in participating in a debate on climate change, I'm more anxious than ever to see his arguments put forth in public. But I repeat my reservations in my 1010am.

[Bonnie McGuire]

When our Ambassador cousin was visiting us during the time he was in Afghanistan helping them with their economy, he was shocked when I mentioned what our government was doing to businesses like Robinsons in America. Unfortunately, most of those making the rules don't know what it takes to hire people and run a solvent business. Too many go into government from college. If they ran a business like they run the government they'd go bankrupt. Well...they can always raise taxes.

[Russ]

Quote of the Day:

CORRUPT, FECKLESS LEADERSHIP PRODUCES PREDICTABLE RESULTS: Think Greece can’t happen here? You’re wrong.

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be. Promises that can’t be kept, won’t be. Plan accordingly.

[John]

I have an answer for Jon about the economic impact of AB32 on the California economy. There is no study to support this,and likely will never be. It is simply my personal observation as a businessman, and the conversations I have had with dozens of small business operators, trying to comply with the mandates of AB32. The legislation is written to directly affect the small business operator who happens to own internal combustion engines as a part of his business. The legislation states that as of the specified date, the equipment must either be taken out of service, or modified to meet a certain exhaust pollution criteria. The net effect on the business owner is that he must decide to either invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment, or go out of business. Dozens of Nevada County small businesses have faced this decision, and many of them have concluded that they cannot afford the investment and have closed their doors and laid off their employees. What CARB should have done, were they not staffed by people who have never run a business and have no idea of the challenges involved, would have been to say to the large corporations like Caterpillar, etc. "by a certain date you need to develop and sell a more efficient engine to the market". The small business owners could have used their existing equipment until it wore out and needed to be replaced. Instead, we have driven thousands of small businesses out of business because they cannot afford the mandates imposed by someone who has no knowledge of small business economics. So Jon, there is no study to document this fact, and I guess we can debate the economic impact of thousands of businesses closing and tens of thousands of jobs lost.

[Account Deleted]

But John, jon FEELS good about getting rid of the confederate flag and having to buy compliant power equipment. And he FEELS good about pissing you off.
That's all that matters to jon and his leftie cohort.
You are evil and jon FEELS good. Whatever else happens is not important to jon.

[Russ]

Remember that "sustainability" is an Agenda 21 code word. Now Agenda 21 under the disguise of sustainability is sweeping across American campuses. This is from PowerLine:

IT’S NOT EASY GOING GREEN
Our friend Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis. Kathy has a graduate degree from the Yale School of Management and a law degree from the University of Minnesota Law School. She can be reached at [email protected]

This important column originally appeared in the Star Tribune and is now posted under the heading “Campus sustainability: Going green is just part of the plot” at the Center of the American Experiment site. It is reprinted here with Kathy’s permission:

Every decade or so, another academic “fashion du jour” sweeps America’s college campuses. In the 1990s, it was multiculturalism. That morphed into “diversity” — now such a mantra that students can spell it backward in their sleep. Today, excitement is surging for a new fad, “sustainability,” that’s taking higher education by storm.

Read the whole article here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/its-not-easy-going-green.php

[Jon]

John 6:45 "Dozens of Nevada County small businesses have faced this decision, and many of them have concluded that they cannot afford the investment and have closed their doors and laid off their employees... So Jon, there is no study to document this fact, and I guess we can debate the economic impact of thousands of businesses closing and tens of thousands of jobs lost".

Do you mind naming "many" of the dozens of Nevada County businesses that have laid off employees and are now out of business due to CARB and AB32? Has the Union picked up on this? Seems it would be a huge story if true. If there are so many, a good first step would be to list the ones in our county. Otherwise, its antecdotal and right wing ideological theory. Thanks.

[George Rebane]

joes 948pm - Just saw this from ol' Hat Hanging Mr Smith - "The people who deny climate change tend to be the same who deny evolution and portend that that the earth is 6,000 years old. I hang my hat on evidence based science and not on faith based rhetoric."

I have to call this comment to readers' attention as a perfect example of the progressive side of the AGW debate. First, he does the Alinsky pirouette relating skeptics to unscientific religious fundamentalists, then claims to support "evidence based science" which he neither presents, cites, nor gives any evidence of even understanding. And then confirms the latter by ascribing the scientific evidence given in these pages, Russ Steele's blog, and Anthony Watts blog as being "faith based rhetoric", when the only faith based rhetoric comes from those True Believers in the Climate Chorus who can only sing the sweet refrain from their ever-popular Consensus Cantata.

So much communicated in such a short comment. But dear readers, that is absolutely their best delivered shot.

[John]

No "Jon", I will not subject anyone under financial stress to you scrutiny, and frankly don't care if you believe the right wing theory or not. If you are really interested, pick up a phone book and call any business that uses internal combustion engines in their operation and ask them if AB32 has caused them financial stress. I guarantee you that 100% of the businesses that are still in business to answer the phone will tell you absolutely yes, AB 32 is an economic disaster. The ones that don't answer the phone won't be able to tell you what it did to them.
And while we are playing this game, I don't believe for a minute that your PG&E bill is down from last summer. AB32 is not designed to lower electric rates and your statement that it has lowered yours is nothing but left wing BS and you know it. Or maybe you are so into the cool-aid that you don't know it. Here is a challenge for you "Jon". Bring me one small business owner that says that AB32 has been good for his business, I'll give you $100. Good luck Jon, because they don't exist.

[George Boardman]

Re John at 8:37 AM:

Nice try. You're the guy who claimed dozens of Nevada County small businesses shut down because of AB32, but when challenged you can't name one. Why should I believe anything else you write?

[George Rebane]

GeorgeB 930am - Mr Boardman, didn't John's 837am offer a stronger response than just "name one" business harmed by AB32? He made it easy for his claim to be locally verified or countered by any reader so that you and others can transcend belief. Until someone comes up with a counter to John, I will have to yield him the field on this.

[Todd Juvinall]

Hey Boardman, call Robinson Enterprises and talk to Joe Griggs JR. He may help your skepticism.

[George Boardman]

There seems to be a double standard at RR. When a LIB makes a sweeping statement like John's, he's immediately challenged to produce specifics. But when a statement like John's is made that validates the CON viewpoint, he doesn't have to produce specifics.

He made the claim that "dozens" of local businesses have folded because of AB32. If John can't back it up, he should retract it.

Having said that, I appreciate the fact that RR is willing to take on all comers. It sets you apart from other bloggers in the area.

[Todd Juvinall]

The reason is because we are in the business world and the people we hang with are in business. Or now out of business. Walked down Mill Street yesterday and we have some more empty spaces. I would suggest Mr. Boardman get out a bit more, rub elbows with some people who own businesses that have a internal combustion engine and then he may then understand why John knows what he is talking about. You can't understand things from just reading a blog.

[Jon]

So we have determined that "many of the dozens of firms" negatively impacted by rules of AB32 have NOT folded. I believe some are stressed to various degrees, that is believable. But without evidence of a single firm that has actually closed up, John's statements are without merit. So, talk about businesses that have had to spend money, fine. But lets just stop the vast exaggerations regarding the impacts of CA regulations. That's all. Thanks.

[George Rebane]

GeorgeB 1011am - No double standard at all. Every conservative here who makes any kind of statement (sweeping or not) that liberals don't like is immediately challenged, no quarter has ever been given. Witness your own comments. Just because I personally don't act as a critic or gatekeeper to every comment is of no consequence. My own opinions, perspectives, outlooks, ... have no greater weight than those of my readers - they all have to stand and contend on their merits. (After all, my ideology and biases are well publicized here; readers ignorant of them are wasting my time and not worthy of a response.)

Mr Boardman, this is not to disparage you for taking John's 837am to task, but I do take exception to your generalized double standard accusation.

Jon 1050am - Agreed that there is no need to exaggerate about the effects of California's regulatory environment on its businesses and workers. The reported migration of CA companies, the net export of CA's middle class and retirees, the slowdown of new start-ups (even in Silicon Valley), etc has been well-documented for years. And the regulatory burden on CA businesses was well-documented even before 2009 and AB32 - for example here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catc.ca.gov%2Fprograms%2Frtp%2Fmaterials%2FSBA_study_on_regulatory_costs.pdf&ei=X8SaVcrRKI2zoQTdx6uYAQ&usg=AFQjCNEQaD_taYi_Se6zMC43DvMMdbmruQ&sig2=0DpuEYr8bcq8DY0DE_Fv_w

As well documented in these pages, there is a reason why other states, even some high tax ones, are spending millions to successfully woo CA companies to relocate. You argument assumes that all those other states' initiatives here are based on butt stupid premises when they launch such efforts.

[Jon]

that's right Todd. GV has vacancies. Ugly ones at that. Lets see, the big ugly empty building on E.Main across from City Hall- now lacking Dorado chocolate (consolidated to Reno), Gold Rush Burgers and Frank's Pizza. AB32 related? Nope. The empty storefronts on East side of Mill- lets see now- a gold crook out of business, a long time gift shop retirement, and the perennial empty spaces around the old Union building. AB32 related? Not that I can tell.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jonnie 11:13 AM

Well perhaps before you pop off you could go ask them. Restaurants are governed by very strict rules and regulations and the use of energy by them is high. Many now fail. Anyway, you don't have a clue about business Jonnie, I was in biz, my ex wife was in biz, all my family members are or were in biz. What biz are you in? GeorgeB could tell us what biz he is in as well. Now PG and E is coming after the poor and middle class on their bills. All AB32 caused.

Debating the disarmed is boring jonnie. Get some arms.

[Jon]

No, not AB32 caused. Energy bills are simply not skyrocketing, except for the hot weather related spike the last few weeks. Other restaurants prosper or are doing the same as always- margins always tough. Businesses come, they go, they start, they fail. Way before AB32 was even conceived. Fact is that rent, water and staff turnover are the things that really hurt them in the restaurant business.

[George Rebane]

We note that the 'AB32 deniers' ;-) ignore comments like my 1056am which get at the fundamental issues of CA's regulatory impact on its businesses. Much better to nibble at the margins.

[Jon]

George, if you want to talk about the overall level of CA regulations and the impact of business-as you have for years-of course that's entirely fair. But that laser focus on AB32 as the single worst piece of legislation ever, which has killed scores of NC businesses, seemingly left and right- that's the only thing Mr. Boardman and I are contesting.

[George Rebane]

Jon 1210pm - Got it. Don't want to circle much-circled barns, but will offer an anecdotal piece myself. In talking with everyone from Lowell Robinson (RIP) on down who operates engines to running restaurants, they all had specific reports of AB32's impact on their businesses. Now admittedly none of the ones I talked to have left NC, but they have had to take money that could have expanded their business and used it to satisfy Sacramento and, apparently, AB32 adherents like you and Mr Boardman. As a businessman, I am more sensitive to the impact of such cash drains than a correct-thinking eco-activist, nevertheless, I'll withdraw from this thread.

[John]

Boardman @9:30. Don't really care if you believe me or not. I will not give you names of failed business owners because they don't deserve to have their financial difficulties discussed by the likes of you. If you really want to know, pick up a phone book and do your own research.Think small operators, brush clearing, stump grinding, trucking,landcsaping, etc. Or do as Todd suggested above, call Joe Griggs at Robinson's for his insight into the economic impacts of AB32 on local small business. You have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking about, unless you are mowing lawns between mindless columns.

[George Boardman]

GeorgeR at 10:56 AM:

I don't expect you to challenge every sweeping generalization made in RR. That would take too much time, and you apparently have a life outside this blog.

I was generally referring to RR's regulars, who are quick to challenge the Emerys and Pellines of the world but are quite willing to accept any conservative nonsense that's peddled here.

I have no particular opinion about AB32; I'm just skeptical about broad statements like the one made by John. As to his 12:24 PM response to my earlier challenge: Put up or shut up.

[George Rebane]

GeorgeB 143pm - While not contesting your assessment of "RR's regulars", except that you omit the equally populated leftwing contingent of RR regulars (save the dear departed Mr Pelline) who are at least as quick to challenge their rightwing counterparties, and who "are quite willing to accept any (liberal) nonsense that's peddled here." Perhaps (understandably?) it is more difficult for you to make out the reciprocal nature of the exchanges on these pages.

[Todd Juvinall]

Only people that never met a payroll sound like Boardman and jonnie. Not a clue. His dribble, well their dribble about anything is well, dribble.

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 437pm - It continues to amaze me that otherwise seemingly sane people believe that business is not harmed by additional regs and taxes (even if assessed as 'externalities'). And they up the ante when they demand a numerical reckoning of business that either fold or leave because a specific action of government. It is as there was an ironclad rule that you had file with the county the exact reason(s) for your moving or quitting your business. Then all that needed to be done to discover the impact of a reg or tax would be to go to the county and just tally up the record to pin how much blame on what. Such people don't understand that those records exist anywhere, and the best we can do is estimate from large aggregates of demographic migrations and business movements during the epoch that coincides with a regulation's rule. However, to these big government people, such arguments are totally invalid.

They practice the same insanity when it comes to voter fraud, which is topically very hard to prove, but synoptically very easy to demonstrate. Again, unless you have specific individuals convicted of specific voter fraud acts, these progressives will not accept any of the many reasonable pieces of demonstrative evidence like 1) more people voting in a jurisdiction than are registered, or 2) the deceased voting, or 3) people voting multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, or 4) thousands of military votes not counted because the ballots arrived late from overseas because they were sent there late. And the list goes on.

This is why we are headed for a Great Divide; it is impossible to attempt a compatible co-existence with individuals who either don't reason at all, or have such bad luck when they try.

[Gregory]

It took medical practitioners many centuries to figure out good bleedings were counterproductive, but then the barbers weren't the ones getting bled.

There is a parallel somewhere...

[Todd Juvinall]

GeorgeR 620 PM

You are totally correct. I once built a restaurant for Chinese man, Jok Wong, in Grass Valley. It was a nightmare for him and for me with Environmental Health. The City was great but when the EH of the county started in it was like Jok was a criminal! There are so many regulations on eateries it is a wonder anyone has any money left to open one. Jok was a escapee from Red China in 1948. Came to America and became a millionaire through his smarts and extremely hard work ethic. He has passed but I still think of him as what immigrants should be emulating.

The proof of all these regs on biz is true. But the left is all about emotions and not facts. They do not understand cause and affect. Except with tobacco. They have still got a jihad going against a legal product but won't ban it as one that they say cause millions of deaths. Why? Money. They extract so much money to redistribute to their pals it makes my head spin. Lousy hypocrites.

[Todd Juvinall]

Regarding my above comment on Jok Wong. Juxtapose a BK restaurant in Truckee by a college educated man and wife. Jok had no formal education yet became extremely successful. He even owned a number of apartment buildings in Sacramento. Amazing, all 5-6 inches of him!

[Jon]

Surely someone here can name ONE (1) business run out of business in the area due to AB32. Just one?
Todd, you are using the word proof of regs on business in one breath and telling people you don't need no stinkin' proof in another. Forked tongue perhaps? Or you don't understand the definition of proof. One or the other.

[Todd Juvinall]

Jonnie are you that dense? I said in one thread that AB32 was simply the straw that broke the camel's back for many businesses. Can't you grasp that concept?

[Jon]

OK, one with a broken camel's back. One...

[Todd Juvinall]

Jonnie, are you in private business? If so do you have employees?

[John]

"Jon", just because no one is willing to give you the name of failed businesses, does not mean they do not exist. The simple fact that you are unwilling to make any effort to find them yourself says you do not really want to know. Why don't you provide the name of one (1) local business that will say that AB32 is not a total disaster? Just one "Jon".

[Steven Frisch]

People can argue this all they want, largely based on whether the agree AGW is occurring or not which here they will never agree on, but the performance of the California economy relative to GHG emissions is really not in question, and there is data to back it up.

California's economy is growing rapidly, creating jobs rapidly, and reducing GHG emissions rapidly, which shows that the old saw that AB 32 is killing the economy is full of beans.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm