Our county’s Tea Party keeps claiming it is “nonpartisan” and doesn’t endorse candidates, but that isn’t stopping it from telling us how to vote on the state ballot propositions in a new posting on its website. And it also has a link reading: “Thinking it’s time to get involved with local politics? Here is a list of what’s open in Nevada County.”
This would seem to go well beyond the “Motherhood and Apple Pie” statement that “We believe in Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Markets (and) Respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
Here’s a list of the propositions for the November 2010 ballot “with recommendations from the Nevada County Tea Party Patriots. Keep this information for November and be sure to vote,” it reads:
•Prop. 18: Safe, clean and reliable water supply act of 2010: NO
•Prop. 19: legalizes recreational marijuana use: NO
“THIS WILL CREATE ANOTHER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
BUREAU THAT WILL HAVE TO BE STAFFED AND FUNDED BY YOUR TAX
DOLLARS. THE CLAIMS OF THE PROPONENTS OF THIS PROPOSITION STATE
THAT TAXES COLLECTED WILL PAY FOR THIS NEW AGENCY. WE DO NOT
AGREE.”
•Prop. 20: Congressional reapportionment, YES
•Prop. 22, YES
•Prop. 23, rolls back AB 32, YES
“BOTTOM LINE – BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA ARE SUFFERING UNDER THE
BURDEN OF AB32. WE HAVE SEEN SEVERE JOB LOSSES AND BUSINESSES
LOCATING TO FRIENDLIER STATES BECAUSE OF THIS ONEROUS LAW. LET’S
CREATE A JOB FRIENDLY, BUSINESS FRIENDLY ENVIORNMENT NOW SO THAT
WE CAN AGAIN CREATE A VIGOROUS CALIFORNIA ECONOMY.”
•Prop. 24, NO
•Prop. 25, NO
•Prop., 26, YES
•Prop., 27, NO
Our community needs to wake up and smell the coffee about our local Tea Party: They are promoting a highly conservative political agenda well beyond any “Motherhood and Apple Pie” statements.
Exit question: How do you think our local Tea Party would have advised us to vote on Prop. 8?
And don’t expect to read about any of this in the local media: It is towing the Tea Party line again this weekend, with another AB32 “hit piece” — this one by George Rebane. Except for a single pro-AB32 article by the Sierra Business Council’s Steve Frisch, the paper has given more ink to the other side (with “other voices” by Dan Logue and others in the past).
Filed under: Uncategorized
Jeff,
Is making recommendations the same as “telling” people how to vote?
I would hope at some point you would put up your thoughts on the propositions and give reasons for voting the way you would recommend. It would be helpful.
The Sacramento Bee gives their recommendations and I guess you could say their editorials are “telling” people how to vote, but I don’t think that is how it is read by most folks. I certainly do not, and again I appreciate their sharing their views so I can better understand what are often very confusing initiatives.
Now I will be honest, my instinct is to vote opposite of what they recommend but I still consider what they are saying and when I find myself in agreement it is a pleasant surprise!
John
John,
You kind of missed the point — or rather, avoided it: The Tea Party is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
How so?
I don’t think they claim to be anything other than conservative and initiatives are certainly non-partisan.
John
That’s good to know, because I keep hearing them talk about how politically diverse they are and how the movement has nothing to do with social issues. LOL.
Here’s an item worth noting: Our county supervisor Ed Scofield contributed $199 to Barry Pruett’s ill-fated campaign for clerk-recorder, according to the latest campaign finance reports. George Rebane ponied up $530.
CABPRO’s Martin Light gave $100 to John Spencer’s losing campaign against Terry Lamphier, and the Nevada County Contractor’s Association gave $1050 to Spencer.
Jeff,
If I joined our local Tea Party group would that mean they are now focused on the “social issues?”
Seems to me that the Tea Party groups have been pretty public and vocal about what they are trying to do, why can we not just take them at their word?
John
Frankly, Jeff, you are right on target. They appear to be, based ontheir recommendations, pawns for both McClintock and Logue, neither of which can point out anything worthwhile in their first term in their most recent office as accomplishments for the betterment of the citizens. That, in my mind, makes them as worthless or down right dangerous to the folks in Congressional District 04 or California Third Assembly District.
The language against proposition 23, for example, looks like the garbage that Logue has been preaching about job losses to other states. No data to support, and Dan Walters, no flaming liberal, referred to the argument as a DOG AND PONY SHOW.
They are, by their recommendations, proving that ther are nothing more than the far right wing ot the Republican party. More power to them, will split the vote and more progressive candidates will be elected.
For some GOOD tea party news, the following if from Politico:
Some leading tea party activists are concerned that their efforts to reshape American politics, starting with the 2010 elections, are being undermined by a shortage of cash that’s partly the result of a deep ambivalence within the movement’s grass roots over the very idea of fundraising and partly attributable to an inability to win over the wealthy donors who fund the conservative establishment.
Many tea party organizations have shied away from the heavy-handed solicitations that flood the e-mail boxes of political activists. And the handful of tea party groups that have raised substantial amounts, either by embracing aggressive fundraising or through pre-existing connections to wealthy donors, are viewed suspiciously within the movement.
Local groups have been left to literally pass hats seeking donations at their meetings or rely on their organizers’ bank accounts, while some national groups have failed to live up to their bold fundraising predictions.
“I don’t blame them, since most of these people are so new to the process, and they don’t know anything beyond the protests, but at the end of the day, the energy and the passion will only take you so far,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, a nonprofit group that teaches grass-roots conservative activists how to influence the political process. “Without money, nothing quite works like it could.”
Here is the link to the complete Politoco story: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55FF3980-18FE-70B2-A88EE8040148ABC6
Sorry for triple post; my post from mobile phone (which is a pain copy and pasting stuff from multiple pages).
Gee Curtis, why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think about McClintock and Logue.
Seems to me that Assemblyman Logue has been Johnny-one-note on the issue of getting more jobs for the district and California: Seems like a pretty good thing to focus on.
Congressman McClintock continues to point out that the United States is BROKE and that spending more money is not a good idea. Again this seems like a pretty good focus in these times.
What would you suggest that they focus on instead?
John
PS: Full implementation of AB32 will cost California at least another one million jobs: Is that a good idea right now?
John please cite your source for the claim that implementing AB 32 will cost 1 million jobs. When I stated the job growth numbers I did the public the favor of citing my sources.
Peter,
The University of Sacramento study is the one that calculates 1.1 million jobs lost. The Yes on 23 web site has all the various studies linked under “Learn More.”
John
LOGUE’s election mantra was all about bringing jobs to the district, specifically where ge was a supervisor, which now has about TWENTY PERCENT – yea, 20%.
And I won’t even go into then “Protect our Boarders” BULL. Likely he did not know a CA Assemblyman votes on such!
McClintock has proved he is a big clown, like ones in a horror movie, and a huge disappointment when it comes to getting “out fair piece of the pie”. He would rather let it go bad while telling you no mater that you ate starving, he has his line in the sand and would not cross it to save your life. Perhaps I B wrong, but I don’t think so. No, my opinion is right on target. On cell phone so cannot dig up some references, but they ain’t to hard to find..,since he has done so little of value to district.
Saying the US is broke does nothing unless you have a solution that the majority can agree to. He should not talk about how bad congress is either, he WANTED THE DARN JOB.
The studies that John refers to as “University of Sacramento” studies–actually studies conducted by 2 CSU Sacramento professors on behalf of a private consulting firm–were called “highly unreliable” and “essentially useless” by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office in the review that you will find here: http://bit.ly/bDNEKu
Thanks Max,
Hardly surprising that this “study” was made to sound more significant than it was.
“Our review of this study indicates that it contains a number of serious shortcomings that render its estimates of the annual economic costs of state regulations essentially useless.”
Useless.
Max,
Would that be the same LAO that also says AB32 will cost California jobs?
Peter,
Speaking of flawed studies: How about CARB’s take on the impact where they ONLY consider job loses in the 20% of the economy or businesses that are most impacted by the required CO2 reductions without any consideration of job loses in the other 80% because of much higher energy and transportation costs?
We need some common-sense here: You CANNOT reduce the CO2 emissions in a carbon based economy without substantial increases in costs and disruptions, which means major job losses. If you don’t like the 1.1 million estimate, show me an honest study that does a better job of looking at the data.
John
Uh, err, umm, oh yeah common sense – funny you should mention it. “Twould be common sense to not base one’s economy on a finite resource. Things are going to change – maintaining the status quo only propagates the mirage.
The change will be uncomfortable in any case – oh well, too bad. I need my environment to live – I don’t need the economy. It’s real simple.
Peter,
Remember we are up to our eyeballs in all those wars in the middle east because we all thought oil was a very limited resource and decided it would be better to yours theirs up first.
We must strive to be accurate in our estimates in all these matters, but environmental hatred of fossil fuels an development back in the fifties and sixties have cost of much in terms of lost lives and treasure.
John
Oops – John restricts context again . . . to the “now” – implying that change is inconvenient “now” – but will miraculously be less so when the economy is “better.” There are lots of changes that result in discomfiture. Which path will mitigate future problems?
A short-term “now” fix that continues degradation of our environment or a fix that addresses the future?
We’re not broke because of a “now” problem – it’s the convergence of many problems – generally described as ‘business as usual’ [pun intended].
Jobs for the sake of jobs with no other considerations is sheer lunacy.
No, AB will not result in the net loss of one million jobs – and despite thinking dominion means that humans can crap on the environment, AB32 will create jobs and is benevolent towards the environment.
Peter,
Crapping on the environment is a sin and we are against that! Damaging someone else’s person or property is a crime and should be punished.
I think “jobs for the sake of jobs” is what President Obama and the other Keynesians are promoting. What America needs are productive jobs: Jobs that produce things, giving us a better economy and better lives.
I think we are in agreement that we are BROKE [at the state and federal levels] because of business as usual. Can we agree that it would be a good thing for these governments to NOT spend more than they take in? Spending more than you make is a bad practice for any individual, family, state or nation.
Mitigating problems requires a proper assessment of the situation. Everything that we do requires us to assess the risk of action versus the cost of inaction. When you get in your car and drive to the store, you are putting yourself in grave danger: it is more dangerous than air flight. However, to stay home means that you would starve, so most of us get in the car and go to the store doing all we can to keep our cars in good repair and avoiding the dangers of other bad drivers. And yes, we all do our small part in adding pollution to the environment, even if we drive an all electric car!
Proper Biblical dominion is much the same: When my grandchildren took about a quarter acre of the property at their new home this year and turned it into a garden that meant less space for some of the wild flowers or even weeds to grow. It will also require more water which means a higher bill and keeping some of those dams that many of you hate. The children also risk future skin cancer with the increased exposure to the sun. They decided it was a good trade-off and are now enjoying more yelow squash than our entire church could eat
Now some might argue that this is not essential to feed their family and it could have been avoided: True enough, but the same principles apply on a massive scale in the fields where the food that feeds their family and many others is actually grown.
So Peter, I hope you can see that what I am suggesting is looking to the future in a realistic and holistic way. Just saying you do not like the way we do things today and that we should stop no matter what the cost is pretty short-sighted and would be very costly.
John
PS: Is carbon dioxide still used as an essential food for plants?
Peter & others who would rather spend their Saturday worrying about the health of our planet than enjoying God’s Creations: Here is a problem that will give you PLENTY to worry about.
http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html
John
John,
How can fighting AB32 be considered “holistic” or thinking towards the future? Much like the ignorance behind the “build more nuclear plants” argument – you espouse continued degradation of the environment either in the name of “energy” or “jobs.” Neither is forward looking in a “holistic” way – quite the opposite; intellectually and long-term lazy.
Please John – enough with the argumentation of the village idiot – CO2 is essential for plants AND animals John. So is water. But gee, too much of either can be lethal can’t it?
Your dichotomies are also blatantly simple – and as usual, contextually restricted: Only two options eh John? Either go to the store or starve? Not quite, not even close. One can grow their own food. One can hunt and/or gather. One can learn to think outside of oversimplified dichotomies and find solutions. Perhaps bartering with a neighbor? Hmmm, it seems as if your ability to “assess a situation” as mentioned in your previous post is limited in the extreme.
Just saying that you like the way things are – i.e excessive human population, extirpation of other species, toxic, dangerous energy – while standing amid the consequences of such choices is MORE than “pretty short-sighted” – it’s criminal – and IS proving extremely costly already.
Another errant assumption/dichotomy John – my day has included hours in the garden, time at the river with the dogs, and some shed building. And as I enjoy Nature the entire time, I just as thoroughly enjoy all aspects to my compassion for all of Nature’s life – including caring about it.
That must be a comfortable little box – motivated by fear of some ‘god’ and where every situation has has only two choices (either worry about planet’s health (wow, that’s such an awful thing) OR enjoy creation) . . .
Peter,
The Saturday reference was supposed to be a joke: I have spent most of my day on my sermon!
You accuse me of being to narrow in my thinking so let’s start with the BIG picture. What do you think that the human population on planet earth should be?
As to your counters: I think I covered home gardening in my example of the grandchildren and if you barter then you have just transferred those choices to others and still have to answer the same type of questions about whatever you are producing to barter with. The choices may be more complicated than a simple this or that, but you have to make choices none-the-less.
John
Responding to the original post – re the NC TPP’s recommendation:
> “•Prop. 23, rolls back AB 32, YES”
This does seem odd, given that in my recent discussion with Stan Meckler (which was quite civil; we each agreed that the other was *not* the devil incarnate) he said the TPPs don’t take a position on climate change, & that he himself didn’t know what/who to believe, on it.
But how can you make an informed decision – much less an informed recommendation for others – on whether climate action’s worth taking, if you don’t know if it’s a real problem?
p.s. a prophylactic rejoinder to the kneejerk response to my semirhetorical question – even if you’re short on cash, it’s still wise to *invest* to avert future disaster.
(John S, once again – please go read Krugman’s Building a Green Economy. Please. And think about how you want to be remembered.)
Anna,
I read his article and thought that I had already commented on his voodoo economics. [Bush pun intended] Let me know if you can’t find it.
And a simple question for you: Could the global warming, I mean the climate change crisis go the way of the acid rain crisis that had us all in a panic just a few years ago, or the way of the ice ages they scared us with when I was in high school?
Just wondering, because if we are not really sure, then maybe those million folks would rather keep their jobs until we find out.
John
John, I’m glad you read it; perhaps it’s planted a seed.
We fixed acid rain, using the tools of economics.
As for the “ice age in the 70s” stuff, if you don’t want to sound silly, it’d be wise to check out talking points like this over at SkepticalScience.com (it’s kind of the Snopes for climate) before repeating them.
Anna,
As I pointed out, the “acid rain fix” was the result of our better understanding of what was going on with lakes returning to their natural acidity.
Is skeptical science claiming that my teachers were lying when they talked about the coming ice age: In about 10,000 years if I remember right?
I don’t this makes me seem silly because I am just making the point that we often have to take the big picture theories of science with a grain of salt.
Take evolution as an example: There are lots of examples of micro-evolution and I even made the point this morning that Christians are the better evolutionists if that were the end of the story: We believe that the diversity that we see in the animal kingdom today has taken place in just a little over 5,000 years after the kinds of animals left the ark.
However, when we make the jump to macro-evolution there are major problems with science and morality. On the science side, how do you explain the existence of baby teeth within a process of natural selection even with lots of time and chance?
On the morality side, you have the many things i have brought up as examples from the 20th Century, but even if we narrow the discussion to the environment, you are still left with the basic question of ‘who cares what happens to the world as long as I get to enjoy it for the short time I am here?’
Thus, I will again make the claim that Christians who take the Bible very seriously are the real environmentalists because we know why the creation should be cared for and that we are in fact commanded to be good stewards of what we have been given.
John
PS: As far as Mr. Krugman’s article, it is my hope that he has planted a seed in your mind about how the real market place works: He did a great job of explaining this before he let his political bias get in the way.
Would be nice to see a bunch of those green jobs be created and staffed where all those former timber workers reside. That would be justice.
Thanks for the discussion, folks!
For the record, I spent my Saturday at the Nevada County Fair, a wonderful event that everyone should enjoy.
I just want to note that John S. used the word “crapping” in a post, which made me smile.
John, I am a native of the Northeast, where the “acid rain crisis” you blithely discount was a real public and environmental health issue. It has greatly diminished due to an enormous investment in public and private education and technological innovations, not because it wasn’t legitimate.
Humans are impacting the environment in countless ways, and the data (atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperature levels, extreme weather), as well as visible evidence (melting of permafrost, Greenland’s newest ice island, disappearance of glaciers) all point to rapid and enduring changes global climate and weather patterns.
The deniers keep poking at the margins (the co-called “ClimateGate” wasn’t – the data was sound) and seem stuck in the status quo.
These rapid changes will have profound impacts on all life on this planet, and their rapidity strains the ability of life to adapt to them. All life – human, critter, bug, plant, etc.
This is a crisis, and it should also be seen as an opportunity – to embrace the job market and economies of the future, to better steward our resources, and to improve the sustainability of both over the long term. Not only the next business quarter or election cycle (which do matter), but also on the scale of decades and centuries. Heck, how about geologic scale?
All that being said, John, judging from our conversations I think you’ve got the soul environmentalist.
John,
I consider myself a true environmentalist!
There were LOTS of problems back east that needed to be fixed like burning lakes
We had the same out west with the smog in Los Angeles. Both have been effectively addressed by and large.
However, “acid rain” was not one of them: That was an alarm raised because the “evidence” said that the acidity of lakes in the mid-west were rising. After a major study they found that these lakes were naturally acidic and that taking down the forests in the 19th century increased the flow of alkaline from the soil and when we reforested those areas the lakes began to return to their natural state.
This is the potential problem I have pointed out in other places about the “evidence for global warming: Does the trend line of CO2 proceed or follow the similar trend line for temperature. One theory says man-made production of CO2 causes it to rise and the temperatures follow. The other says that solar storms cause the fluctuations in temperature and that CO2 follows. Either make sense but we do not as yet have conclusive evidence and I still think we let those folks keep their jobs until we do.
John
Skepticalscience.com, John. Think of it as a credibility aid – it’ll help you avoid repeating bogus stuff about climate, & so will improve your credibility overall.
Anna,
I think we could trade web sites all week with both sides saying the other side is lying. I have tried to honestly consider both sides, going back to discussing this with a good friend in the late 80′s when it did not get the attention it does today and I am not convinced that CO2 is the problem nor that man’s contributions can have the impact they claim.
Here are a couple of things to thing about:
First, the one place where the “science” has been tested in a court was England and that found it very wanting.
And secondly, if there is controversy and we cannot be sure the CO2 is the real cause of global warming and we certainly know that California going alone will certainly have NO real impact even if it is, then why is Prop 23 not a reasonable compromise to say lets wait and see if the science continues to prove their point and other join in the fight. In the mean time, California is in NO position to lose more jobs nor pay more for gas & electricity.
John
PS: As a bonus question: Why are there so few meteorologists who earn a living knowing about the weather on board with all the climatologists who make their living working on government funded grants to show that man is at fault for global warming?
The meteorologists who have spoken out say that it is bunk including some of our own here in Northern California.
“we certainly know that California going alone will certainly have NO real impact even if it is . . . ”
Total bunk. Any impact is REAL. The most populous state in the nation taking action to become environmentally responsible will have impact. Innuendo can’t dismiss that fact.
Back to “good stewardship.”
Let’s not limit scope to human caused increases in CO2.
Are you going to also argue that there isn’t human caused:
-Extinction of other species crisis?
-Desertification?
-Decrease in soil fertility?
-Deforestation?
-Fisheries depletion?
-Ozone hole?
-Pollution?
Is agri-business as practiced with use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides (POISONS) good stewardship?
How about the factory farming of chickens, cows and pigs? Good stewardship? Humane?
Laughable that some will try to reduce the argument to only CO2 when the whole system – economic, agricultural, financial, is built upon assumptions of limitless growth on a finite planet.
Weather is short-term – weatherpersons look only into the very near future.
Climatology is long-term. It’s that big picture thinking that some cite, but cannot manage to practice.
15 Yard Penalty.
Contextual Restriction:
Smog is hardly “solved.” Combined with limiting problems to CO2, when it is but one of myriad man-made problems which culminate in UNsustainability.
15 Yards, False Dichotomy:
“One Theory” vs. “Other Theory.” There are other theories.
Flagrant Misconduct, 15 Yards:
Evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming – consequences are already in motion.
Peter,
I cannot sustain this type of set-back late on Saturday so I will have to leave you until Monday and only ask that you give us one of the other theories.
John
Hi John S.
Sulfur dioxide was another key culprit in the acidification of New England lakes and waterways (where I grew up, camped, fished and swam), but as you state, reforestation and erosion control have helped, proving that humans are capable of mitigating – even reversing – environmental harm.
The CO2 levels and rate of climate change are far outside the historical ranges, even factoring in solar variability like the Maunder Minimum (we’re talking ice core and geologic samples going back hundreds of thousands of years, here – unless you are a Biblical literalist and adhere to a Young Earth theory?
To delay sensible actions that harness opportunity while awaiting “conclusive evidence” translates into “too little (or none), too late,” to my ears.
I hope you finished tomorrow’s sermon by now. You know, as an environmentalist you could recycle those.
John,
Remember, they lied to me about the coming ice age, so I think I will stick with the Bible.
The sermon is ready for its final touches, and yes I am still waiting for that “paperless society” that the computer age also promised. Men are so unreliable.
John
Well, our planet has seen many ice ages in the past, and will no doubt see them again in the future. Such things happen on geologic time, John. Climate change attributed to human impacts, however, is happening on a very short time frame, which is very concerning.
I don’t know if we’ll ever see a “paperless” society, but certainly a “less paper” society is here. Did you write your sermon longhand, or on a computer?
John,
I do it on a computer, but sadly with my eye-sight the font size requires printing it on a lot of paper.
On the bright side, my son demonstrated this morning how he can view our order of worship, which is several pages, on his I-Pad!
Of course this is going to become a pastor’s nightmare as we look out over all those electronic devices wondering who is following the text and who is playing games.
John
Just a reminder that much of that reforestation that decreased acid rain was funded by a cap and trade market on SO2, that was used as a model for the CO2 market development. See markets work to reduce pollution.
Steve,
Actually most of the reforestation was the result of no longer using less fertile eastern lands for agriculture as we saw more advanced production in the farm belts and improved transportation to the urban areas.
Peter claims that we are trying to have limitless growth on a finite planet, but what he is really saying is that he opposes progress and technology. I don’t believe we will have “limitless growth” because the earth will some day be full as God commanded. I also accept that our planet is finite because only God is infinite.
It is in the area of progress and technology where we part ways. As I have often pointed out, IF you took the six billion people that we have on planet earth today and placed them on this same planet at any other point in history you would immediately face massive deaths via starvation, disease and likely violence.
If you go back and read The Population Bomb and other books from the sixties they argued that our planet could not support six billion people without seeing massive starvation and disease, and they would have been right IF you assumed that nothing changes as man takes proper dominion. It was hard for them to imagine how the world population could be doubled and not destroy life as they knew it in that time.
Well it did double in less than fifty years and by most standards we are better off today than the world was in 1965: I.E. there was a lot more smog in LA, eastern lakes were burning, Russia was irradiating much of its land and lakes and a whole lot more people were starving on other continents.
Improved transportation and agriculture have given us the ability to do things that could not have been imagined and yet Peter wants us to believe it is the problem!
So, I say that the world population will double again, many of you would gasp and think I be crazy. The truth is I don’t know how that population could be sustained, and actually could not with our present technology. But you see our present technology will not be the present technology at the future time that we reach a population of twelve billion.
Let me illustrate with one of my favorite stories from the past: In doing so, I will use the term “horse poop” so John will not be offended by my using the word crap again
Picture ourselves being”civic planners” living in the year 1905 who were working on future problems that cities like New York and Chicago would face over the next fifty years. Just as we do today we would have had to have projections of population growth in these cities and it would have been pretty substantial.
One of the major challenges to to addressed was what to do with all the horse poop that would be created by all the horses that would be needed to move the greater number of people around. You see, horses were the major means of transport in the urban centers so it was only logical to assume that with more people you needed more horses.
I am sure there were discussions about replacing horses with something else, but few would have imagined the impact of the automobile in just a few decades. However, in 1905 I am sure that Peter would have been one of the loudest voices crying out, “If we don’t control the population of these cities we will all be standing in neck deep horse poop!”
For all the bad press that fossil fuels get today, they did solve one problem that I am sure glad we don’t have to face here in Sacramento today.
John
PS: They also gave us cheap power that lets me run my new air conditioner which is kind of nice as well!
John
Your post is horse poop as are your inferences.
I need not speculate – you ARE crying – that everything is fine – that we need “LOTS” more nuclear plants.
I think it cowardice to just lay it all at god’s feet- “oh, he’ll take care of it, so don’t worry.” That’s called passing the buck, i.e. not taking responsibility.
Funny how your posts have devolved into lots of “if this” or “if that” and hypotheticals from 1905 – not too pragmatic. Try to be here now.
Peter,
Some one wise once said that if we don’t learn the lessons of the past we are doomed to repeat them.
I am all for moving forward!
John
SO2 needed reduction, CO2 does not.
CO2 is within historic ranges, and is currently a small fraction of its prehistoric atmospheric concentration. Our mammalian ancestors scampered about in about an 1850 ppm world, and snowball earth episodes have been identified with CO2 in the 10,000 ppm range.
I apologize for forgetting a definition of historic. Yes, in the scope of human history, CO2 generally reached a maximum of being 0.03% (3 hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere during interglacials, but it is now closer to being 0.04% (four hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere.
But we did evolve as mammals in a 0.2% CO2 atmosphere, and the Earth has been more-or-less completely frozen over with 1% CO2.
Greg,
So are you saying that my sixth grade teachers were right about the coming ice age!?
However, I must again warn, that IF we evolved as mammals from some lower species, which in turn evolved from just plain old stuff, then who cares about global warming? “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die: So what does it matter if the earth dies the day after that?”
John
Sorry John, but I fail to see the humor, logic or even the point of your second paragraph.
Regarding your first point, I’ll assume your 6th grade teachers were caught up in the global cooling scare of the 70′s, caused by short term, natural temperature oscillations. The positive feedback CO2 warming theory that drives our current alarmism originated as a scheme to try to reverse that misunderstood cooling trend.
There will eventually be a return to cold conditions but climate dynamics and solar science are not well enough understood to predict when that might happen. Could be now, could be 5 thousand years in the future. No one knows.
Greg,
I am glad that you understood my reference to the ice age and sorry about the confusion on the second paragraph.
There was no humor intended: It was meant to be dead serious.
IF there is no God and we are all just advanced matter modified by time and chance then NOTHING has any ultimate meaning and this entire discussion has been a waste of time.
If on the other hand we affirm the truth that mankind was created in the image of God, then we are not just advanced animals and have a solemn duty to be good stewards of the creation in which He has graciously placed us.
John
John, for most of us, “meaning” stands on its own, whether or not there is an invisible man in the sky moving things along. And so do ethics.
Greg,
Did not say you and others could not say their is meaning and/or ethics and even practice them: Just think we should be honest about whether or not our world view leaves them with any ultimate meaning.
Bertrand Russel, who is certainly on your team, was being honest when he said:
“That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
“Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”"
John
oops, should have been ‘there is meaning’ and not the improper use of their
John
No John, I am not on BR’s “team”, and he was not on mine.
This has been a great discussion and I will leave you with a warning from Jon Coupal about who you all might be hanging around with: Folks in the mold of Ken Lay!
Here is a sample: “So who exactly is bankrolling the opposition campaign? It certainly isn’t the earnest environmentalists in their Birkenstocks. The big bucks are coming in from hedge fund managers, Wall Street traders and venture capitalists. In fact, a hedge-fund manager formerly of Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs is the major contributor to the No on Proposition 23 campaign.”
And here is the link for the full article: http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2010081609265876
In the end I am confident that the California voters will see the wisdom behind Prop 23 and I will certainly enjoy having Jeff pay for dinner
John
Thanks for this info, Jeff. In case I get busy and do not have time to fully investigate all props and who is for, against, the T P advisory will help me in voting for or against any props. they oppose or oppose.
John Stoos, I enjoy your comments and appreciate the knowledge you show, especially of Biblical history; however, wish you would be more careful in giving references, particularly when investigation reveals them to be highly biased or discredited, e.g. , there is no University of Sacramento. If you mean the report authored by 2 Sac State profs., it has been widely discredited by authorities in the field, and when you quote an official spokesman for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association, please show that connectiion as this organization is widely know to present only an extremely conservative view and is hardly an objective information source.
I strongly agree with Pat’s comments about sourcing and citing references. Sometimes our discussions on this site are backed up by good references, but more often than not we are failing to cite sources well. And when that happens, we backslide into the kind of namecalling and ranting that happens on The Union’s comment boards.
Pat, there is a University of Sacramento. Here is the link to their website:
http://universityofsacramento.org/
I do agree with you about citing sources and references and providing links. Helps if a person wants to do further research to get a more complete picture. For instance, when I found John Stoos’ reference to the University of Sacramento study, I wasn’t surprised that the school seemed to have a religious affiliation. I probably wouldn’t be too surprised if I agreed with the Legislative Analyst on the soundness of the study John cited but I don’t want to go there.
Anyway, it’s good to do the due diligence if you want to understand where the other person or party is coming from.
Sorry, meant any props. T P oppose or support.
So Pat does that mean you oppose Prop 20 and are supporting Prop 27? Explain why you believe in gerry-mandering and continuation of California’s current politic mess . . . ? If you believed in good government, you would be in alignment on these two with the Tea Party . . . can’t you at least find some common ground?