Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax since the Cardiff Giant! Anyone with any science back ground at all can see that most climate scientists are not following true scientific processes to reach their conclusions. They use the results of computer models as fact ignoring the garbage in garbage out rules of computing.
Dr. Roy Spencer’s new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
Dr Spencer has been criticizing climate scientists for years for their lack of understanding of cloud cover. Computer climate models all use the same assumptions where they assign an average amount of cloud cover determined through statistics. Their insufficient knowledge caused them to make assumptions that are not valid.
Another mistake that climate scientists have made is to assume the Earth is very sensitive to heating or cooling by external sources. Recent satellite data shows the Earth is quite insensitive. That poses the question of how can a trace gas like Carbon Dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere) have any major effect on the climate. Dr Spencer actually states that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”
While it will take concentration to read and understand the importance of this book, it is worth a read. Nearly half is references. During the read, remember that ill informed politicians are currently spending your tax dollars to prevent a phenomenon of which they have little or no knowledge. Politicians are using AGW to further their political agenda, and we tax payers pay for it!
Watts Up With That? – Climate FAIL Files
Junk Science – The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
Randy recently retired from the Army with the rank of Colonel. His military specialty was environmental science and civil affairs. Randy has completed his doctorate of management and has become involved in local politics.
@antics: Here’s what you are omitting. Of course, most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not man-caused. Prior to the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuel, the atmosphere was in a perfect, closed system, equilibrium. Trees grow and take up CO2. Trees die and release the CO2 they’ve taken up. There is no big increase or decrease over time, save for periods when the earth warms. This heats up the oceans and releases CO2, the same way that heating beer releases CO2.
Now, what’s happened, at an accelerating rate over the last 100 years is this. Humans are mining and drilling and pumping fossil fuels out of the ground. These fossil fuels contain CO2 which has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years. This is what is unprecedented and which is why the prior historic relationship between CO2 increase and temperature is reversed (i.e. temperature increases first — because of cyclic variations in the earth’s orbit, mainly — followed by heating of oceans and release of CO2. This CO2 release creates a positive feedback effect, which amplifies and perpetuates the warming — that is the theory).
So, very gradually (well, not so gradually, as in the 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 since I was 12 years old) humans are adding a little more CO2 to an otherwise closed system every year. The article I linked in Watt’s Up shows I was correct in asserting that it is completely unreasonable to dismiss, out of hand, the relationship between human burning of fossil fuels and the 100% documented and 100% accepted increase in atmospheric CO2.
The greater controversy is whether or not this CO2 increase is the proximate cause of the also, by now, relatively non-controversial increase in global temperature, melting glaciers, rising sea level, etc. I am in agreement with all of you that it is wrong to accept this theory (that it’s the CO2 which is causing the temperature increase) uncritically. I don’t believe that it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that it’s premature for force everyone in the world to reduce their carbon consumption, but I personally believe that a preponderance of evidence does support the theory, while acknowledging that some knowledgeable scientists disagree, while many others do agree.
My strong objection is to the assertion that AGW definitely does NOT exist. Or that it’s all a “big hoax.” As I’ve pointed out, the scientific critics of AGW theory don’t reject it out of hand, the way that so many political partisans do; they simply say that there are weaknesses in the theory and that the theory has not been proven; they don’t claim that it’s been disproved.
As I also keep saying, certitude is poison. In either direction. A closed mind is an unfortunate thing with which to live.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Blake (#99): See #59
@Nan (#75, #77,#79): Re: Alleged California insolvency:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/05/economic-growth-pumps-up-state-revenues/
– larry weisenthal/huntington beach, ca
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sorry, Larry, but that statement is inaccurate. Many sources of CO2 into the atmosphere, such as volcanic activity, both above ground, and below the ocean surface, forest fires, which not only give up CO2, but cut the capacity of vegetation to act as a CO2 sink, and numerous others. It wasn’t a perfect, closed system, in equilibrium. It never has been, as long as the earth has been around.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did you read it, Larry?
Brown’s FIVE YEAR PLAN (commie?) includes making deep cuts in education so as to SCARE voters into accepting higher taxes!
Same as he ever was.
Scare-monger.
Creep.
_________________________
Oh, yeah, and Prince Charles is one of the greenest of all world leaders.
Right?
Yet he allowed his son’s wedding to cause – in one day – 12 times more carbon emissions than a whole year at Buckingham Palace.
6,765 tonnes of carbon dioxide – for those of us in the real world comes out to 1,230 times the annual emissions of the average UK household.
SOURCE
When the ”king of green” Charles Prince of Wales tells us what a huge crisis we are all causing with OUR carbon emissions just remember the words, “It’s good to be the king!”
@johngalt:
Forest fires, per se, don’t increase CO2, provided that the forests are allowed to grow back (e.g. as happens in the American West). You burn up the trees; they release CO2; then the trees grow back, and CO2 is taken up again.
Volcanic produced CO2 is trivial — really trivial— like 1% — compared to human CO2. The massive eruption of Mt Pinatubo did not even have a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2.
You are correct about permanent deforestation, though. This also disrupts the pre-existing equilibrium, just as does the burning of previously-sequestered carbon in fossil fuels. But deforestation is also anthropogenic, just as is the burning of fossil fuels.
The evidence really is overwhelming that:
1. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a very alarming rate.
2. Human activity is the proximate cause of this increase.
What’s controversial is whether this human-produced rise in CO2 is responsible for the warming which has occurred, along with this rise. Jury is out — in BOTH directions.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Nan (#104): Brown doesn’t want voters to raise taxes; he simply wants voters to extend current taxes which were enacted some years ago as temporary taxes. California is not massively out of line with other states, tax wise, as I showed in prior comments. What’s relevant is that California’s economic recovery is now looking so strong that the Republicans are claiming that the tax extensions are not needed. Brown wisely wishes to extend the taxes because (1) we can obviously afford it, as we are having this very impressive recovery despite the presence of these taxes and (2) Brown wants to put the state on a sound financial footing, rather than having it teetering on the brink.
Of course he’ll use scare tactics. That’s what politicians do. Did you never hear of “death panels” and “generational theft” and whatever. Actually, Brown is the strongest supporter of education that you’ll find. His father’s greatest achievement was creating the world’s greatest public college and university system. Unfortunately, the great UC schools are now financially out of reach for the average family, owing to massive hikes in tuition and fees. If we keep tax levels right where they have been (again, compatible with the current robust recovery), we’ll hopefully collect enough money, not just to squeak by, but to make higher education affordable, once again, fill in the potholes, open up all the parks, and generally restore California to greatness.
You get what you pay for. California’s recovery is heavily tech sector based. I’m happy to have Texas make its money drilling oil and warehousing merchandise. >50% of US venture capital flows to California. 4% flows to Texas. Texas thinks that the path to prosperity is squeezing the public sector dry. I disagree. The future is right here, in California, just as it’s been for the past 50 years.
What California does today, the rest will do tomorrow.
And we even ratified Kyoto! Is the future of energy headquartered in Houston or in Silicon Valley?
The venture capitalists are betting with their wallets.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
um… you may be jumping the gun on your “robust” joy and confidence, Larry. The extra tax income where you rest your laurels is increased personal income tax, of which the jury is still out because of the capital gains wild card. Don’t forget, stocks enjoyed a banner 2010 year.. most especially financial institutional stocks… buoyed up on the “can’t lose” policy of too big to fail, Bernanke’s no cost gambling rates and furious money printing, and never ending QE policies. Your own link points this out:
On the flip side, corporate taxes are down, which doesn’t indicate strong recovery. This is also reflected in the still 12% area unemployment rate, which has been that way since Sept 2009.
The industry that seems to be doing well is the tech social media/mobile apps industry, mostly concentrated in the SF/Silicon Valley area. This, however, only makes up about 16% of the California private employed economy. Also, the mean average in wages is up only about .4% Kinda interesting to see who’s had the biggest increases there, tho… models, teachers, agents (presumably film and modeling industry), dentists, marine and naval engineers, athletes, funeral directors, music directors/composers, orthotists and prosthetists, costume attendents, flight attendents, paperhangers, fabric menders and wood modelers.
All in all, if the majority of the increase is stock market based, the other contributions make it a fragile upward trend at best. An Aggie Org May 4th article by Max Rosenblum says California housing is the second unhealthiest housing market in the nation, topped only by Nevada’s worse housing market.
If I were you, I’d keep the bubbly on ice still.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, forest fires do release CO2, both from the burning, and the dead timber itself, along with the dead plant growth. And it is a loss of the sink capacity of the earth’s vegetation mass, although, in time, it does grow back, if allowed to. And volcanic activity isn’t just a surface phenomenon. Right now, as we speak, there are eruptions that happen daily, under the surface of the ocean, that release CO2, amongst other gases, such as SO2, and it’s greater than that figure that you just put out.
Those prevent a “perfect, closed system”, from being the case. Human activity, that results in CO2 emissions, are not the sole additions to the atmospheric rise. And, as much is still unknown about the CO2 sink and emission capacities of land and ocean, it is entirely wrong to state that human activity is the proximate cause of the atmospheric increase. If it was proven that land and ocean take in just as much as they give off, then your assertion would be correct. But that isn’t the case, and no one has truly studied all the effects that happen, in relation to CO2 emission and intake.
Also, the controversy surrounding whether or not CO2 is responsible for temperature increases is based on fallacy by the AGW crowd. Look at any graph, with atmospheric CO2 level, and temperature, and you see that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. And, what’s more, if their assertion were correct, then how do they explain the continued increase in CO2 levels, since 1998, when the temperature has been steady to declining, since that same time period?
As I said, much is unknown, yet the AGW crowd has taken a few, tangible facts, and have loosely related them, in an attempt to prove their conclusion.
No one has doubted that CO2 levels are rising, although the amount of rise is in dispute, as the monitoring stations have their own, inherent, problems due to their locations. What is in dispute, and has been since the day Mann shuffled his graph off to AL, is the reason for the increase, the result to the earth’s atmosphere due to that increase, and the impact that human activity has had. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, the effects of deforestation, which has increased many times over within the past few decades, has a much, much higher impact on CO2 atmospheric increases than the burning of fossil-fuels does. And yes, it is human activity, however, it has nothing to do with fossil-fuel usage. Just my thoughts.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, Brown’s problem is the same as all up and down CA.
Unfunded Liabilities.
According to a Stanford University study, California taxpayers are facing a pension liability that could exceed $500 billion.
Unfunded Pensions.
Like Newport Beach’s Lifeguards.
While working (until age 50) the full-time staff might make $120,000/year in pay and benefits.
But after retiring they can pull down $200,000/year!
Now, not one of these$200,000/year guys sits in a tower and saves drowning swimmers, mind you…..those are all part-timers. ($16-$22/hour/ no benefits at all….tops!)
These $200,000/year guys are the ones who keep the towers painted, the guys in the towers in swimsuits and the offices manned.
The average city and town in CA spends $.31 of every payroll dollar on pensions.
Fresno spends 53 cents of every payroll dollar on pensions!
Newport Beach is debating cutting back to almost ZERO the number of lifeguards at the beaches because the department (including pensions) costs so much!
There’s ”logic” for you!
Do you honestly see Jerry Brown standing up to the public employee union bosses and bringing some sanity back into the system?
He’s showing no spine on that front.
@John: Everything that dies (humans included) give off CO2. Everything that lives (humans included) take up CO2. So decaying trees and forest fires and dead humans do not contribute to a net increase in atmospheric CO2. They are just putting back into the air what they took up, during their lifetimes. Forests take up CO2. They then burn down, releasing the CO2 that they took up. But they then grow back, and the CO2 is again removed.
It’s only with PERMANENT deforestation (i.e. human produced or anthropogenic) that the equilibrium is disturbed and there is a net CO2 release (i.e. burning or decomposing new carbon — trees — has the same effect as burning old carbon — oil and coal).
With regard to undersea volcanoes, these are accounted for in the article I linked. The most massive land based volcanic eruptions of the past 50 years did not have a measurable impact on atmospheric CO2. Granted there were also underwater eruptions, but, number one, the amount of CO2 released from any volcano is trivial. CO2 is not an important component of volcanic eruptions. Number two, there’s no reason to believe that we’ve had a massively increased amount of undersea volcanic activity over the same time period as we’ve documented a massive increase in atmospheric CO2. In contrast, the massive observed rise in atmospheric CO2 tracks nicely with the amount of coal and oil which has been burned, along with amount of rain forest which has been lost.
With respect to it being “entirely unwarranted” to assert that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, I did provide a link to the review appearing on Watt’s Up, where the guy marshaled all the evidence from all the studies and concluded that it was virtually certain that humans are the culprit. Now, if you want to maintain some skepticism, of course, I think that skepticism is very healthy (just as certitude is poison). But it’s way too strong to claim that it’s “completely unwarranted” to conclude that humans are responsible. There is, in fact, a lot of direct and indirect evidence for this. People have even made calculations of how much CO2 SHOULD have been added to the atmosphere, based on how much sequestered carbon has been burned, and I believe that the calculations match up pretty well with reality. The same investigators have also projected what future CO2 levels will be, once all known oil reserves have been exhausted. I really do think that this is very solid, well accepted science, which isn’t challenged even by scientists who don’t accept the proposed link between the CO2 and the temperature.
With respect to timing of past CO2 rises vis a vis temperature rises, I’ve explained this, I think, three previous times on this thread. In the past, an cyclic variation in the earth’s orbit caused the earth to enter a heating cycle. This heated the oceans and the heated oceans released dissolved CO2. But this sequence of events isn’t relevant to the present, because what’s happening now is unprecedented (i.e. massive release of CO2 which has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years in a period of only 100 years.
I think that we can both agree that permanent deforestation is very important. I think that you can prove, mathematically, that burning coal and oil is very important also. We know how much coal and oil we are burning. We know where the CO2 produced in the burning ends up. We can calculate the amount of CO2 released per barrel of oil or ton of coal or liter of natural gas.
Where we have the greatest disagreement is where the climate scientists have their greatest disagreement. Does the rise in CO2 have anything to do with the rise in temperature? I’ve already acknowledged that I don’t believe that this is anywhere near being “settled science,” one way or the other.
With regard to “1998.” There are certainly other things which contribute to global temperature, besides greenhouse gases. Earth orbital variations are probably responsible for ice age cycles. Solar activity has an impact over short periods of time. 1998 was a peak of solar activity. For a couple of years thereafter, temperatures stopped rising. But there’s a clear trend upward, disregarding 1998, the anomaly of which is explainable by solar activity.
The past decade (post 1998) is the warmest on record. Look at the graphs. 1998 was clear (and explainable) anomaly. But the trend is perfectly clear.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-global-temperature-1860-2005.gif
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@nan (#108): I don’t disagree with you at all about public employee unions and pensions. I agree with Franklin Roosevelt that private sector unions are good, while public sector unions are bad. I agree that Brown is a long way from being perfect, just as are all politicians. They need to cobble together enough votes to get elected and, once elected, they owe a debt to those who were responsible for their victory. I don’t want to debate whether it’s Democrats or Republicans who are more beholden to the most unsavory constituencies. I don’t think that either pot can call their opposite kettle black. It’s just a fact of life.
California has a short term problem (current budget deficit) and it has a long term problem (unfunded pensions). The pensions are not the cause of the short term problem. I think that Brown is actually going to do a good job in solving the short term problem in getting the state’s annual budget back into some semblance of functionality. The pension problem is going to have to be solved over time. It’s very useful that the GOP states are establishing a precedent. I don’t think that public unions here are going to get busted, Wisconsin style, but they will ultimately be brought more into line.
It’s not just the NB lifeguards who have great pensions (both of my kids worked as seasonal lifeguards, by the way. Great job for older high school kids and college kids — $16-$17 per hour). Very tough to get those jobs — hundred kids doing a 1K to one mile ocean swim in 57 degree or so water — no wetsuit, plus combined beach run + swims, for maybe 15 slots. The OC Sheriffs’ pension program looks like it has beaten back all the court challenges. One sweet deal for those guys.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim, you mentioned something that let me to beleive in the ultimate stabilisation of CO2, THE FACT THAT WHO DIES BE IT A TREE IN THE CHAIN LINK ALL THE WAY UP TO HUMANS, RELEASE THEIR INDIVIDUAL AMOUNT OF CO2, and who lives take up CO2 INCLUDING AGAIN THE LADDER OF LIVING BEING, plus I will include all the plants we grow for food or pleasure to see,
NOW there is probably times that there more CO2 RELEASING THEN TAKING DUE TO WHATEVER
EVENTS, OR WAR OR SEASON OR SUNRAY OR OR OR. AND NOBODY CAN CALCULATE THAT HAPPENING, BUT ALONG THE TIME INFINITE TIME NOT ONE HUNDRED YEARS OR ONE YEAR,
THE TAKING AND RELEASING GET TO BE BALANCE IN THE GLOBAL EARTH BY THESES 2 EVENTS THEMSELF, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY OF LIFE ITSELF REGULATING ITS OWN BALANCE,
LIKE TOO MANY OF THE SAME SPEECHY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO EXTERMINATION UNTIL THEIR IS LESS OF, AND SAME FOR HUMANITY WHICH AT A CERTAN POINT TEND TO ELIMINATED THEIR OWN
BRINGING ANY PURPOUSES OR EXCUSES BUT THE REAL REASON THEY DONT THINK OF,
OR DARE TO, IS THE CLEANSING OF THEIR OWN WHICH HAVE BECOME TOO NUMEROUS TO BE SUPPORTED,
WATCH IN ARABS COUNTRY WHAT IS GOING ON TO POPULATION WHO ARE FORCE TO MAKE
MANY CHILDREN EVEN IN ABJECT POVERTY, WATCH WHAT THEY END IN ANOTHER GENERATION UP TO BECOME SO NEGATIVES AS TO KILL THEIR OWN, THESE LEARNED YEARS AGO FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADER
IN A LIFESTYLE THEY CANT BE HAPPY IN, AND DONT KNOW WHY, AND DONT QUESTION IT
BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONLY LEARNED TO OBEY THOSE LEADERS,
IF THEY WOULD REALYSE THAT THEY HAVE TO LIVE FOR HAPPINESS INSTEAD OF CONQUER THE WORLD THEN THEY WOULD RESTRAINED THEIR PREGNANCY SO TOO NOT HAVING TO STAGE WAR SO TO REDUCE THEIR NUMBERS, IN FUTURE GENERATIONS
IT IS ABSOLUTLY RELATED TO THE CO2 FACTOR AS AN EXEMPLE OF THE NATURE ABILITY TO REDUCE THE EXCESS OF IT’S EARTH LIVING BEING
Ah yes, bees… population control for climate control. Less people mean less exhaling. Less people also mean less demands on food and their CO2 emissions. If they can’t control industry, they’ll certainly attempt to control population. oops…. silly me. That’s just what the UN Population Fund advocates, even tho they admit they have no idea if it would affect the dreaded climate change one iota.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You really ought to stop and think about what you are saying.
The idea that earth’s ecosystem is closed is really very limited thinking. Many, many factors and variables affect it.
Again, I fall back on the Dept. of Energy report that says that CO2 is anything but a man made issue.
@mata: Thanks for #111. This Spring, I’m mainly drinking pomegranate juice and Clausthaler non-alcohol beer. Bit of a resolution. So I’ll keep the leaded bubbly in the wine rack, as you suggest.
@antics: I don’t understand this quote at all:
Your Department of energy data does not state what percent of the last 50 year dramatic rise (25% !!!) in atmospheric CO2 is owing to what. If you can give me the link again (I looked for it, but couldn’t find it), then maybe I could figure out what the heck is being talked about here. The paragraph above relates to the question of the link between the known increase in CO2 and the known increase in temperature; it doesn’t clearly relate to the issue of what caused the CO2 to increase by 25% in only 50 years.
I provided a link to a thorough review off all the evidence article appearing on a global warming skeptic web site (Watts Up) and the conclusion was that it was overwhelmingly likely that the observed rise in CO2 was indeed owing to man-controlled causes (fossil fuel burning and deforestation). I’d like to see where your above argument fits in with all of this but I truly don’t understand the point of the quote and I’d like to read the article, if you’ve got the link.
Most CO2 is dissolved in the ocean, but it stays there, unless the ocean gets heated up. The CO2 which is in play is the atmospheric CO2, of which it can be calculated that the amount of coal and oil and gas burned plus deforestation is more than sufficient to account for the observed 25% rise in 50 years. As the temperature warms (and it is warming), the ocean will start giving up its dissolved CO2 and the rate of CO2 rise will increase further. What effect this has on global temperature, many of us will live to see. If you outlive me and global warming doesn’t happen, you are perfectly within your rights to say I told you so.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
MATA, THANK’S, I was making the point to what LARRY’S mentionned , gave me the thought that we don’t need to try to fix it, and there is nothing to fix, and LARRY said it himself in that first sentence of who die release and who live take, and my point took me where the people force to many pregnancys in the poorest situation, are also forcing those baby to a survival strugle for life or death, and that is directly in tune from MOTHER NATURE OWN WAY of correcting abuse of the EARTH ELEMENT,
and I saw a real fact for those selling their pitch to do something inappropriate to supposivly fix it,
when it will be fix naturely, bye
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Sorry you are having comprehension problems.
From the US Dept. of Energy:
I hope the table appears readable. I am not sure how it will show, but the table clearly shows that the man made CO2 contributes a whopping .117% to the greenhouse effect.
.
.
.
@anticsrocks:
So, if all humans disappeared tomorrow it would only cut one quarter of one per cent of all greenhouse gases?
0.28% to be more exact.
How much would THAT cost us?
EVERYTHING!
What would be the effect on earth’s climate?
Probably unnoticeable.
@Nan G: Exactly Nan, that is according to our Dept. of Energy and God knows we’ve poured enough tax dollars into that agency, so they had better be right!
@ Bees
The location of the magnetic poles is pretty much continually in flux. The Earth’s rotational axis however is constant and does not change due to magnetic fluctuations.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Yes, but no matter how many times you explain it, it doesn’t change the fact that CO2 levels changes FOLLOW temperature changes. Essentially, the cause is the temperature changes, while the CO2 change is the result. That effect isn’t going to change, just because human activity has added to the CO2 rise in the last century, or so.
Regarding undersea volcanic activity, much of the oceans depths have not been studied, so for anyone to assume, based on what little is known about the ocean, that a measured amount of activity can be true, for the entirety of the earth’s oceans, is just a little bit presumptive. And that is what I’m talking about. The knowledge we, as humans, have of that particular aspect regarding CO2 emissions is a drop in the bucket compared to what is unknown.
And your carbon cycle, in regards to animal life, is wrong, as animals, of which humans are part, do not take in CO2 into our bodies. We take in carbon, and with breath exhalations, the O2 we take in is emitted, partially, as CO2. Plants, during the day, when photosynthesis occurs, are the opposite, and at night, they also take in O2, combine it with carbon, and emit CO2, though the net, overall effect of plant life on earth is as a CO2 sink. Hence, the deforestation activity of humans has a major impact on the CO2 sink capacity of land mass.
#117,#121 @antics @rocks
With regard to global warming ending in 1998, no, it hasn’t. Firstly it’s perfectly legitimate to look at a 20 year trend line. You were the one who said that there hasn’t been warming since 1998 — you can’t say this, when the twenty year trend line (corresponding with massive increase in atmospheric CO2) is clearly upward. Anyway, the atmospheric temperature is trivial compared to true global temperature. The oceans are an enormous heat sink, and you have to consider ocean temperatures along with atmospheric temperatures and the combined ocean/atmospheric temperature record clearly documents continued warming.
With regard to CO2 increase following temperature increase in the past. The past is irrelevant, because it’s not what’s happening now. In the past, natural fluctuations in earth orbit triggered heating which released CO2 from the oceans (the heating beer analogy). At present, CO2 is leading, because we are having an unprecedented, massive release of CO2 from the burning of sequestered carbon, accompanied by permanent deforestation (both anthropogenic).
With regard to human bodies giving up CO2: this does happen with human decomposition. The human body is carbon based. Carbon is the backbone molecule of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. When we die, our bodies are either burned like coal or our body is fermented by microbes. Here’s the fermentation equation:
C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2
With respect to the Department of energy. Your figures (ostensibly quoted from the Dept of Energy) show that humans contributed only 3.2% to atmospheric CO2. This is very misleading. Earlier, I cited a review (on the Climate Skeptic blog “Watts Up” which concluded that the evidence was compelling that the massive recent rise in CO2 was owing to human causes.
With respect to the CO2 greenhouse effect being trivial, no, it’s anything but trivial.
With regard to volcanic activity contributing: I’m sure that you won’t be able to find a credible scientific link which supports this, as the CO2 content of volcanic emissions is trivial. This is one of those blogosphere urban legends.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, it seems that no matter what data is presented to you, you just find a way around it.
When historical data is presented, you state that past activity doesn’t matter.
When current data is presented, you state that it is wrong.
So basically no matter the data presented, you stubbornly stick to your near religious like belief that man is destroying the planet. Never mind that it has been shown that the earth has been cooling for the last 10 or so years. Never mind that in the past CO2 followed heat periods. Never mind that 99.9% of CO2 emissions are natural and not man made. Radiative forcing has been debunked, and by that I mean not that it doesn’t exist, but that it is not the end all and be all of global warming.
You accuse others of not having an open mind, but you sir are the one being closed minded about this.
BTW, from the bibliography of the paper I cited:
From the paper I cited:
But none of this matters to you because the global warming theory fits into your Marxist beliefs that the too few “haves” need to spread the wealth to the too many “have nots.”
anticsrocks says: “Larry, it seems that no matter what data is presented to you, you just find a way around it.”
I don’t want to be an “I told you so”, but I told you so. Just like you can’t teach a pig to sing, you can’t employ reason and logic with cultists. It doesn’t work and it just annoys them.
Speaking of annoying, in Dr. Larry’s honor I went out this morning and torched off a huge pile of brush, cardboard boxes, used pallets, and old polyethylene sheeting that I’ve been saving for a special occasion like this. Yup, I poured gasoline on it and lit if off. It was very satisfying to release all that carbon back into the atmosphere so the trees and plants can use it.
For an encore, I fired up my chain saw (more CO2 and VOCs), and cut down a couple trees to burn in my Rumford fireplace next winter. Cultists like Dr. Larry blather about “sustainability”, but they never engage in it, do they?
Come on now Larry, admit it; If I were your neighbor, you would have called the police on me by now. In fact if you Gaia cultists had the power, you would no doubt have me drawn and quartered just like the high priests used to do to non-believers in the dark ages. It must be very unsettling for you to realize that with all your education, training, and good intentions – you’re still subject to the same hatreds and irrationalities as the priests of The Spanish Inquisition.
ditto, thank you, am I wrong to think that if the EARTH axle doesnt change with the pole ‘s moves,
and going EASTWARD, that eventualy the NORTH POLE WILL END UP IN THE EASTOF THE THE EARTH, WHICH DOESN’T FOLLOW IT BUT STILL ROTATE INTO HER AXLE, telling me that the now location of the POLE will be replace by the PACIFIC OCEAN, AND LATER BY CHINA.
ON a lighther note, that could be why CHINA is bying so many lands in CANADA and immigrate more in the west OF CANADA because they might know they will own it and, just [ joking]
bye
John Cooper, hi, from what you mention of your work on your land,
that makes me think, OF that is probably the end game of the GOVERNMENT WHICH IS PUSHING THE CO2 factor along with the WORLD ORGANISATION AND THEIR SUPPORTERS,
and their combined end game will be to tax everyone on a fix amount of how much you burn or discard in any other way on your land, they might be elaborating a way to calculate all the new taxes they could bring in their coffer, and which way to calculate the amount of each person, to base themself,
I already heard of their talk to reduce even the CO2 exaled by farm animals!!! so we are not far from it to be true in the future, what will and how far will they go for getting your money for them to spend
@Randy: I would suspect, knowing the government, that just changing the runway designations (repeatedly, since the magnetic poles have NOT stopped their migration) would cost quite a lot, if a hammer can cost $500.00- and since you would have to change EVERY runway designation, kind of SNAFU things pretty well, don’t you think?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Once again, this time with FEELING- Say it with me, “Co2 is NOT a poison gas, and Kathleen Sebelius is a know nothing crone.”
You can do it, I know you can.
Mizz Bees: You’re right, they want your land. The way it works is they file lawsuits which force the federal government to regulate your land so as to make it unprofitable to farm, ranch, or grow timber there. When the price of the now worthless land falls, groups like the Nature Conservancy and the NRDC step in and buy it up. We saw this in the Klamath Basin in Oregon ten years ago and it’s going on now in the Western San Joaquin Valley of California. In both places, the environmentalists got the water cut off and the farmers and ranchers had to move out.
The environmentalists are cowardly terrorists. They don’t have the guts to destroy property and throw people off their land themselves, so they let the courts do the dirty work for them.
JOHN Cooper, I believe that those envirementalist groups, have it completly upside down,
and in the time we are living now with the extraordinary never seen, high prices of the food; TO shut a farmer’s access to water for his animals and agriculture land developping the food for people of this NATION and therefor forcing the farmers to leave, this isAN ACT OF TERRORISIM,
AND THEY SHOULD BE DELT WITH AS IT IS VERY SEVERLY, AND DENIED THE LAND THEY HAVE BOUGHT!!!It goes as far as commiting treason against AMERICA being short of another farmer,
which are so precious for the PEOPLE to consume their own food grown in their own AMERICA;
no wonder you see and in the larges and small alike, so many produces which come from other
COUNTRYS, that always astound me to observed, like GHINA’s garlic piling over CALIFORNIA”s
succulent garlic I used to find eazy, but now they monopolyze the shelfs wth a big amount of their chineese garlic grown who knows how, we cannot go check in there, and the president of the
SUPERMARKET DON’T KEEP CHECK EITHER CONSTANTLY,
this is just one of forhein produce that could be grown right here in AMERICA BY AMERICANS,
and toses jobs to AMERICANS THAT ARE MISSING NOW MANY FOREVER BECAUSE OF
HAVING CUT THE WATER OR WHATEVER OTHER PRESSURE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO
THE PRECIOUS FARMERS OF THIS LAND,
DON’T THE GOVERNMENT KNOW WHERE TO HELP? THEY ARE WRONGLY TARGETTING THE WRONG PEOPLE BY ALLOWING THOSE ENVIREMENTALIST TO GET RICHS ON BUYING LANDS TO CHASE OUR GOOD FARMERS AWAY OR STRESS THEM TO THAT END.
@ Bees
As I noted, the Earth’s axis (the geographic poles) is completely separate from it’s magnetic poles.
Due to the shape of the earth, (a slightly flattened sphere) and inherent gyroscopic stability, it would be highly unlikely for the axis to shift more than extremely, infinitesimal amounts. If the axis were to shift noticeably, there would be cataclysms on a grand scale.
The magnetic poles are in flux because they are created by geomagnetic activity within the molten outer core. This outer core of the earth is an electrically conductive fluid and acts as a dynamo. The outer core rotates relative to the earth’s rotation along its axis and moves across existing lines of magnetic force. The magnetic field is thus regenerated, using the fluids energy of motion. Shifting of the magnetized portions of the molten outer core creates perturbations in the magnetic location of the dipole fields. Cooling and heating of the outer core also has an additional effect.
Ditto, WOW, that is an incredible explaination, for me to understand better, I appreciate you taking the time for me, yes I can see th e magnetic base retaining the pole and preventing it to shift too fast to an insignifiant pace, while being disturb by those inner and outer forces, It makes more sense to visualy have a mental pattern,
what It also remind me is of the WISDOM of the CREATER of it all, and reenforce my believe that,
it did not just happen by itself, but was very well thought of by a super mind over any other minds
thank you so much
@nan, @mata: re: California’s future
Remember, California gets more than 50% of the nation’s VC investment; Texas gets 4%. Did you know that California’s business tax rate is lower that that of Texas?
@John (#124): Credit where credit is due. This one was inspired genius. I literally laughed out loud.
@John, Antics, Randy, etc.: Currently traveling (now in FL, and have been unable to provide the thoughtful response now required. Shall do so, when able). While on my weekly Sunday AM 10 mile run, I think I thought of a way to bring us slightly closer together. Look forward to sharing.
– Larry Weisenthal/FL
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, I just had to see if this thread was still alive. I guess you just keep it going. When you state that forest fires do not add to Co2 accumulation, then why was the US required under the Koyoto Protocol to count the CO2 generated by forest fires as part of the CO2 emmissions? If a forest takes in CO2 for 100 years and gives it back in a few weeks, that doesn’t contribute to CO2 levels?
The fish are biting, but it is not snowing here.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry- if Cal.’s tax rates are so low, why are more companies seeking to move to Texas? Are they tired of the Cereal State (fruits, nuts, and flakes) as it is, or perhaps there are more onerous taxes there than you attempt to portray?
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance report
“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
-That’s enough for now….
Patvann, hi, yes It is very noticeble how the words “world ” and “global”
showing up so many times, with thoses promoting the WORLD ORGANISATION to control
all the NATIONS, AND YES THEY ARE GOOD AT IT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN MISGUIDED
to believe the rhetoric of the organisation; as we see they blinly joined, to become
the new fashionable traitors of their COUNTRY, THEY ARE TRYING TO RUIN AND DEMOLISH TO SURRENDER IT TO THE UN ORGANISATION OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT,
YOU ARE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED, their jobs is to gather more AGENTS in the right position
of influence to join in and continiue the rise of the pyramide, so to cease power so much eazyer
having insiders open wide the door for them to enter as CONQUERERS WITHOUT A FIGHT FROM THE PEOPLE. SUCH IS THE DANGER AMONG OTHERS FOR THE PEOPLE OF
ALL THE FREE NATIONS OF THE EARTH TO NEVER ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN,
WHEN THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR DISMANTLING THOSE ENNEMIES; AND RID THE GOVERNMENT CMPLETLY FROM THOSE WHO HAVE JOINED AND ARE HELPING TO DESTROY THE NATION.
@Patvann: Awesome list, Pat!! Thank you.
@Patvann: If you take all the quotes you have provided, all that it equals is a new religion, worshipping Mother Earth, or Gaea, or whatever they choose to call it- but in this case, the “high priests” all get lots and lots of money and power, whil;e, as they say, the rest of us have to become poorer in order for there to be “s ocial justice”- what a load of crap- it is good for US to be poor, but also good for THEM to be rich? I don’t think so.
Regarding the damning quotes: They are all over Internet (as a collection). Try as I might, I can’t find the original sources (to determine context). I think that unsourced, out of context quotes (which may or which may not be accurate and, in any event, are out of context) are no more valid than the typical Daily Show montage of Fox News out of context quotes.
Last summer, I went to a lecture (at the Chautauqua Institute) given by the CEO of Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest power companies, which mainly runs coal fired plants. His lecture was about the importance of reducing CO2 emissions and the steps his company was taking (scrubber and sequestration technology for coal plants; building more nuclear, alternative energy, etc.). The lecture was 98% about the policies in the context of CO2 and climate change, but, at the end, he made a single statement to the effect that, even if the climate science turns out to be totally wrong, his engineers and number crunchers came to the conclusion that Duke energy would still benefit, long term, from following the exact same policies. So you could just quote a single phrase out of a single sentence out of context and it would look like the Duke Energy CEO was just another climate fraud.
If anyone has links to original, in context, sources, I’d like to read them.
With respect to CO2 and forest fires, yes, forest fires are carbon neutral, as long as the forest is allowed to grow back. Trees take up carbon when they grow; they give it up when they die. They give it up whether they decompose or whether they burn up. If they are allowed to grow back, they take back the CO2 they gave up.
With respect to California companies moving to Texas; this is largely a myth. I gave a link earlier. And, anyway, California business taxes are actually lower than those in Texas. California personal taxes are slightly higher, but California taxes are about average for the nation. The biggest problem for businesses in California is the very high real estate prices for workers. Houses in California sell for multiples of the prices of comparable houses in Texas. Many workers just can’t afford to live near where they work. Not because of taxes, but because houses here are (still) so expensive.
With respect to me being a “gaia cultist,” no, I’m no more a gaia cultist than the mainstream climate skeptics, such as MIT’s Lindzen and Berkeley’s Muller. My position is that atmospheric CO2 is dramatically increasing and that the increase is due to human activities and we have no clue what effect this increasing CO2 will have on planetary (including human) biology, quite apart from climate effects.
My position is also that the preponderance of evidence points to continued global warming (and assertions that warming has stopped in the past decade are incorrect; I provided links to this effect). I’ve explained the fact that prior instances of CO2 following temperature increases are irrelevant to what is happening now, because what it happening now is completely unprecedented in the history of the planet. I’ve also provided links to this. I also provided links to disprove the hypothesis that volcanic eruptions (either on land or undersea) are a potential source for the observed rise in CO2. I’ve asked for others to provide credible links to the contrary, but none have been provided.
None of my above positions have been refuted by any arguments, data, or links provided on this thread.
I don’t know if the observed increase in global temperature was caused by the observed (and human caused) rise in CO2. This remains a hypothesis, and I don’t believe it’s appropriate to make any political jurisdiction do anything it doesn’t want to do, CO2-emissions-wise. But Europe and China have voluntarily decided to take measures to reduce CO2 and so has the State of California. California has every right to do so and is doing a great service to the rest of the country by serving as an “incubator” test case, just as Massachusetts is doing a service to the nation by piloting ObamaCare. It’s all just more data, which will be useful for formulating future policies. For example, if California really goes bankrupt on account of restricting CO2 emissions, this will be useful information. If California thrives as a green energy technology center (analogous to Silicone Valley), then that will be useful, as well. By that time (say ten years down the road), the state of climate science in general should be much clearer than it is today.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
Not every ”tax” is called a ”tax.”
And nowhere is that more especially true than in California.
Who remembers AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act from 2007?
AB 32’s regulations carry a multibillion dollar price tag and are the largest tax increase ever imposed by unelected regulators in California — call it the “global warming tax.”
Green jobs by 2010 composed less than one percent of California’s economy, only 42,000 green jobs.
Since 2000, California has lost more than 600,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Even green industries are choosing to expand outside California.
Think that’s ”just anecdotal?”
Think again.
Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute examined the consequences of government regulations and policies in California that have made the state a high-cost place to do business.
Malanga pegs the column to a recent visit to Texas by California state legislators and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to investigate how the Lone Star State has done so much better in job creation than the Golden State.
And for all the state’s emphasis on “green jobs,” companies that manufacture environmentally oriented products are escaping California, as well.
For the past ten years, California’s Governors and Legislatures have focused on spending cuts and tax increases as the solution to our state’s economic woes. There is a third leg to that stool, an aggressive plan for economic growth. If job creation is truly our highest priority, then let’s create a plan to grow jobs. Look to the future as Governor Perry did in 2003, set job creation goals for the next 15 years and develop a strategy to achieve those goals.
openid.aol.com/runnswim, hi,
the real problem is that they are selling the idea for self profits,
and you dont hear about the specific of what human do to as they claim rise up the CO2,
and no comparison on what human do to diminsh that CO2, because they cannot
do it, and all the money they want to spend is not right to demand the TAXPAYERS TO GIVE,
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO IT, AND THE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY,
IN THESES HARD TIMES , THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEDED TO RUIN THE ECONOMY,
so they should stop trying to find GiMIC to get more money from the people who are sweathing to survived some day by day, not knowing the tomorrows,
and most of it playing the waivers gifts on their own favored who have vote for them,
bring more suspicion from the AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THEIR RHETORICS.
@Nan. Those are ANECDOTES. Businesses make decisions for lots of reasons. Most doctors (and most voters) in Massachusetts are very happy with RomneyCare (the prototype for ObamaCare). Virtually all of their patients now have good health insurance (>98%, state-wide). But some doctors are very dissatisfied. Listen to them, you’d think that RomneyCare was a catastrophe.
You can’t draw any conclusions from anecdotes. Despite you saying that it’s not just anecdotes, that’s really all you have presented — anecdotes. I previously linked an article which showed that the alleged massive transfer of jobs from CA to TX was a myth. Yes, it is true that energy regulations can cost money. We pay more for gasoline here in CA, because of formulation restrictions to reduce smog. But most people agree that this is worth it.
We’ll all see how California’s anti-CO2 initiative plays out, long term. But, even short term, we are really doing pretty good. And, remember, the anti-CO2 laws weren’t foisted upon us by Democratic politicians. California voters supported both the original initiative and then re-affirmed this, by lopsided margins, despite huge spending against it by the petroleum industry. So we Californians are getting exactly what we voted for.
Yes, we do have an employment problem, with respect to workers in the Portland cement (and similar) industries. Some companies (and workers) really are better off locating (and working) in other states. Perhaps you remember the “rust belt.” Times change and economies adapt and evolve. What a great country, to have BOTH Texas AND California! Something for everyone. It would be both boring and unhealthy to have a uniform political and economic climate across the country.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I apologize in advance, I never read any link from the NYTimes since they started charging.
Sure, they give you “X” number of free links per month but then the charges kick in.
Forget it.
You are learning the strawman fallacy from the master: Obama.
You wrote:
I never meant to claim that EVERY business that leaves CA goes to Texas.
That’s a misunderstanding.
Straw man actually.
But CA has 12 percent unemployment, 4.7 businesses leaving California per week (up from 3.9 per week last year)
Here’s the fact:
14 out of 70 from Jan 1, 2011 to April 22, 2011 went to Texas, not all 70.
That’s NOT anecdotal.
But this is:
Carl’s Jr. has built its last restaurant in CA.
As Hardee’s it will continue to build in Texas.
Why?
It takes six months to two years to secure permits to build a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the CA, versus the six weeks it takes in Texas.
California is also one of only three states that demands overtime pay after an eight-hour day, rather than after a 40-hour week. Such rules wreak havoc on flexible work schedules based on actual need.
If there’s a line out the door at a Carl’s Jr. while employees are seen resting, it’s because they aren’t allowed to help: Break time is mandatory.
“You can’t build in California, you can’t manage in California and you have to pay a big tax,” Mr. Puzder, CEO of Hardee’s, told the legislators.
Now, I happen to like Carl’s Jr.
But at least I can go right across the street and buy nasty, filthy fruit ices, fly infested corn on the cobs, tamales with who-knows-what in them and so on from the unlicensed vendors who sets up shop after the Public Health agency inspectors all go home for each weekday.
🙂
But no new Carl’s Jrs.
PS, not one of those unlicensed vendors is paying fees, taxes or anything.
But their families are SUCKING the system dry of Food Stamps, Housing, Welfare and free schooling and health.
They probably are getting a federal ”tax refund,” for being so poor, too.
oops… got caught in Larry’s word parsing game, Nan? LOL
But of course it’s not just Texas. There’s software giants like Adobe, gamers EA Games, and online retail outlets like eBay abandoning CA for Utah for more inviting business climates. Guess they didn’t get the silicon valley memo that Larry was touting last week or so, eh?
But it doesn’t end with Utah…. since you can bring it down to almost “anywhere but California” for others. As the “Government in Exile” blog noted in fall of last year, the list of CA exiles grows daily. The link above contains a list of the companies that have bolted the Golden State for more “golden” business opportunities in the past decade…. compiled by an Irvine business location specialist.
@nan:
I apologize for the straw man. It wasn’t intended. I hate straw men, myself. I didn’t intend my comments as a straw man. I was merely saying that the claims of a major job migration from CA to TX have been grossly exaggerated. I previously provided a link to support this statement.
Here’s the NY Times story, from a different source.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/revenue-spike-cuts-calif-budget-gap-to-108-bln-2011-05-16?link=MW_latest_news
Based on deficit to GDP ratio, we are probably doing better than Texas, state finance wise. The unemployment stats are simply one metric of the overall economy. The overall CA economic recovery is probably outpacing that of the nation. As I keep pointing out, the forecasts for the future are for a major venture capital, new business boom and CA is getting >50% of the nation’s VC, compared to the 4% share for TX. So our future looks bright, conservative doomsayers notwithstanding.
Yes, I understand that California is not the most favorable place for Portland cement and for certain fast food businesses which don’t like paying time and a half to minimum wage employees who work more than 8 hours in a day.
I don’t know where you live, but there are very few Californians who have to drive very far to find a Carl’s Junior. The nearest one to me is 1.5 miles.
P.S. I just looked a couple of things up. First, Hardee’s and Carl’s Junior are owned by the same company. Second, CA already has 700 Carl’s Jr restaurants. Texas just got its first in 2008 and there aren’t plans to go beyond 300 at present; so we’ll still have more Carl’s Jr than TX, even when they finally get built out. I’d say that the big reason they are expanding in TX, rather than CA, is that the choice locations in CA have largely been saturated, while TX is virgin territory. Businessmen can play politics as well as politicians, a lot of the time.
I heard a business story this past week on the radio. Don’t recall when/where. But they were saying that businesses very seldom move because of tax policy differences. There’s always something much more important. If houses and real estate in general cost much more in CA than in TX, that’s incentive enough to move headquarters, for e.g.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Nan, I refrain from eating out to avoid sickness, (It’s fairly effective according to my anecdotal system of accounting) but when I must eat out, Carl’s Junior is my poisoner of choice. Oh! don’t fret my friends, I have eaten at the top end places and the humble places as well.
@Skookum:
Me, too.
BTW, how about a $50 100-watt light bulb?
Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012.
Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them.
The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014.
Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
75-watters are hitting the shelves this year. Osram Sylvania will be selling them at Lowe’s starting in July. Royal Philips Electronics NV, the world’s biggest lighting maker, will have them in stores late this year for $40 to $45.
To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million “L Prize” for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb.
Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that’s quite similar to the one submitted to the contest.
But it’s slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe’s, also for $40.
See, not enough idiots were buying into this whole AGW fraud so CHOICE was taken out of people’s hands.
Lucky for the rest of us, there seems to be enough rich idiots who will buy Priuses, Volts and other waste of good money for nothing cars.
MATA, you said test, but it’s not here, I recieved it on my site, and came here to check on you,
and your test is not at FA
BYE
@Mata: To put things in perspective, 2.3% of California’s job losses were caused by corporate migration out of state. At a current unemployment rate of about 12%, this means that, absent out migration, the unemployment rate would have been 11.85%, rather than 12.0%. It’s utterly trivial. As for reasons for relocating, start with housing costs. Do some Zillow searches on Mountain View and Cupertino and Palo Alto (Silicone Valley cities) and compare not just average home prices but home prices of truly comparable homes and lots with those in Texas and North Carolina. Tax codes and regulation have virtually nothing to do with it.
What’s vastly more important than in migration and out migration is the creation of new businesses, growth of existing businesses, balanced by failure of existing businesses. By this metric, California is doing very well and has a brighter future than that of any other state, because the new business money continues to flow here, to a far greater extent than anywhere else.
The stuff you are quoting comes from a guy in Irvine who makes his living helping companies relocate. He’s based in California and it is in his best interest to tell the story in the way which most helps his own business.
By the way, the job losses from California to other states is a small fraction of its losses to Mexico, under NAFTA (which had the enthusiastic support of most Republicans — I supported it, also).
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2011/05/09/calif-has-lost-most-jobs-since-nafta.html
P.S. Just heard this morning that Pabst Blue Ribbon is relocating corporate headquarters from the Midwest to Los Angeles. 🙂 So there. Another fact: low tax, low regulation Nevada, proud recipient of California’s Portland cement industry, has proportionately lost more jobs to outmigration than has California. As I said, it’s got way more to do with things such as housing costs and general cost of living than it has to do with taxes and regulation.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just what do you think it is that affects housing costs and the general cost of living? Taxes are self explanatory. Regulation, however, is an indirect, but significant contributor to the general cost of living, and that is anywhere one can go in our country. And……………government regulation doesn’t just affect products that one can purchase, such as food or even the lightbulbs we use, but it affects the services we require as well, such as oil changes on our vehicles and maintenance on our heating/air systems at home.
From your #140;
That is a dishonest statement, Larry. You are implying that all of the links that we, myself, antics, Randy, another veteran, and Nan G, have provided are worthless, while the ones you cite are impeccable, and unimpeachable. And it appears that the only standard you apply to links provided are that those supporting your position are of high value, while those disputing your assertions are of low, or no, value at all. Very dishonest.
A casual reader who comes here might, without the benefit of perspective, believe that your posted comments are the truth, while all others are of no significance, and merely the arguing of the ignorant “skeptics”, if all they read was your post #140.
@johngalt:
As to my statement that “I’ve asked for others to provide credible links to the contrary, but none have been provided,” I was referring specifically (re-read my comment) to the claim that volcanic activity could plausibly explain the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years. To date, no such link has been provided. If you can provide such a link (to a credible, science-based source), please do so, and I’ll take back the statement.
As to the following statement:
I’m sure that even Mata would agree that housing costs in California have virtually nothing to do with taxes and regulation. The replacement cost of my house, should it burn down, is 1/3 or less even the currently depressed value of my house (which is on only a 7,000 sq foot lot — the 7,000 sq foot lot being worth twice the value of the house which sits on it). Houses cost so much here, because there’s not enough choice land, in choice locations, for the number of people who want to live in said choice locations.
Real estate taxes are very low here, by the way — much lower than in most parts of the country. Perhaps you remember the groundbreaking “Prop 13?” Overall taxes are about average for the nation. Business taxes are also about average (and, as noted, actually lower than in Texas).
As for “regulation,” concerning running either households or businesses: well, I’ve been a homeowner in California for 32 years and I honestly can’t point to a single “regulation” which has in any way constrained my freedom or cost me any serious money. Same thing for my business (and I even own my own commercial building). Yes, I had to get building permits. Yes, I have to have a certain number of fire extinguishers and sprinklers and I have to pass fire inspections and state medical lab inspections. I can’t burn my own trash. I have to document safe disposal of biocontaminated waste. I have to meet OSHA standards and payroll standards. I had to install an energy efficient lighting system. I had to build out my rest rooms to accommodate wheelchairs and provide a handicapped parking space and I can’t build a backyard fence more tha 6 feet tall and I had to replace my cedar shake roof (when it needed replacing) with non-flammable materials. I have to get my vehicles inspected for smog emissions. I still get occasional $37 tickets for forgetting to move my car on the twice per month street cleaning days. But it’s all eminently reasonable. I get the point of all of it. And I’m a good enough businessman that I can deal with minor annoyances and run a successful business.
Plus, I get to live in California. I travel the country and the world — literally. But, as the Beach Boys said, “I can’t wait to get back to THE state…”
I realize that it’s not for everyone. Fortunately, as I wrote previously, we have a country which has not only California, but also Texas. Something for everyone. What a country.
Non-Californians seem to have this need to see us get some sort of come-uppance. Somehow, I think that there will be a lot of smug satisfaction, outside of state borders, when the Big One finally hits us.
But I do understand. As Yogi Berra said, “nobody’s human.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
A house owner in California that hasn’t a clue about the various Props (regulations) mandated by law to ensure housing is built to specific codes (sometimes not helpful nor safe to the consumer or community, aka underbrush elimination near property.) Really? I’m only 29 years old and I have been kept aware of the various Kansas statues, including State and City regulations and policies related to use variou luxury items such as open pit wood fire grills and material incenerators to prevent fire damage in a serious drought (which Kansas is facing now.)