Californian climate mutiny! Democrats side with Republicans to defeat Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown, photo author Neon Tommy, source Wikimedia

Jerry Brown, photo author Neon Tommy, source Wikimedia

Democrats in California seem to be finally waking up to the fact that green energy disproportionately hurts poor people.

According to the Wall Street Journal;

The environmental lobby has tried to turn climate change into a social justice issue even though its anticarbon policies disproportionately harm the poor. Honest Democrats are starting to admit this, as we saw in this week’s stunning revolt in the California legislature.

Jerry Brown doesn’t have much to show for his second turn in Sacramento, and of late he has focused his legacy attention on reducing carbon emissions. The Governor hailed California as a model of green virtue at the Vatican this summer and had hoped to flaunt sweeping new anticarbon regulations at the U.N’s climate-change summit in Paris this year.

But now his party has mutinied. Democrats hold near supermajorities in both legislative chambers with 52 of 80 seats in the Assembly. Yet this week 21 Democratic Assembly members representing middle- and low-income communities—including 11 blacks and Latinos—joined Republicans to kill a bill mandating a cut in state greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-change-revolt-1442014369

All I can say is its about time. The evidence that green energy is hideously expensive and hurts poor people is irrefutable. Claims of alleged benefits are all based on broken climate models, which have no demonstrable predictive skill.

Anyone who supports absurd green energy policies is the enemy of the world’s poor people.

Advertisements

251 thoughts on “Californian climate mutiny! Democrats side with Republicans to defeat Jerry Brown

    • Also, put “California’s Climate Change Revolt” into the Google search engine and you can read the whole article. Some kind of agreement Google has with the Wsj.

      • 1. I’ve had better luck doing this with Chrome rather than other browsers”, and
        2. Enclose the title in quotes when you do your Google search.

    • Well since the WSJ article appears to be available, only to a limited degree, there is another matter–an eye-rolling PR-stunt, really–that Governor Brown was involved with, here lately, that might help to further understand why Jerry is beginnin’ to rub folks the wrong way.
      In particular, Jerry sent a letter to Dr. Ben Carson, which can be viewed if you Google: “sfgate Jerry Brown to Ben Carson: Do your homework”. Please read the letter–it’s a classic of its kind. And I was so inspired by Jerry’s snippy little letter to Dr. Carson, that I’ve even decided to come up with a letter of my own:
      Hey Jerry!
      I read that smug, “white-splainin'”, Bwana-normative epistle-booger you sent to Dr. Carson. 800 “scientists” and 30,000 “scientific papers”, you say! Gosh darn! That’s a real hive-swarm worth of tenured-parasites pilin’ up a whole heap of ivory-tower, taxpayer rip-off make-work, all right! I’m impressed!
      Jeez, Jerry, you really can’t stand a black man–a black man who is, oh by the way, a man of integrity and a world-renowned neurosurgeon–who doesn’t toe the hive’s Gaia-con party-line and who sees through all the hive’s scare-mongering, agit-prop flim-flam, can you? Sorry, guy, but it’s a whole new world we’re dealin’ with now. You’re a dinosaur, Jerry. The old tricks don’t work, any more. You gotta just deal with it, Guv. Better yet, Jerry, CHECK YOUR “WHITE-PRIVILEGE” AT THE DOOR!!!
      Here’s how the deal works, Jerry:
      A four-legged lab-rat will invariably latch onto whatever “right answer” the experimenter wants, as long as the furry critter is rewarded with a food-pellet for its “successful” efforts. With me, Jerry? Samey-samey with two-legged, academic-hack lab-rats–they, too, will reliably come up the “right answer”, as long as that “right answer” opens up the sluices and charges their trough with another load of swill. And Dr. Carson understands all that, unlike you, Jerry, And so your crappy, little letter to Dr. Carson only succeeds in making you look like a breezy-jerk, hive-tool asshole, with wanker tendencies. HECKUVA JOB, BROWNIE!!!

      • Many of us in cal have known this for years…three big cities control our politics while the rest of us are exploited. Personally I can’t wait for Brown to be flushed

      • Great rant, Mike! At first read I thought, ‘yawn’, then I thought, hang on, read it like the man said it: Then I got it. Great rant! It needs recording like the Peter Finch rant in Network, and played back to those in ‘power’. Tick VG.

      • Mike, if you send it to him maybe you’ll win a free flash drive too. Then you can post what’s on it for us to analyze.

      • Mr. Mike,
        You need a course in anger management.
        Jerry and I would love to hear about this “whole new world we’re dealin’ with now”. Sound to me like you spend too much time drinking KoolAid. Good luck.

      • @bobthebear
        You’ll probably be surprised to learn that over at the “Daily Kos” blog there is a commenter, using the handle, “bobthebear”, who says of Dr. Ben Carson: “Carson is either a scam-artist, a grifter or a fool–all of the above” (Google: “daily kos sept 12 2015 ben carson couldn’t find the evidence”).
        That couldn’t possibly be you, could it, BTB? And, of course, I ask that question only as a matter of form, since I well know that that can’t possibly be you, BTB–a reasonable, temperate, and decent sort of gentleman, like you, would never say something like that. So, BTB, you might want to go over to the Daily Kos and expose the “bobthebear” impostor, there.
        One more thing: In one of your comments, below, you accused me of calling you names. Well, BTB, unless you consider a reference to you, as a “modern-day Savonarola”, to be name-calling–and I don’t–then I didn’t call you any names. Just for the record.

      • @bobthebear
        Sorry, I missed that you (and Jerry, too (do you really speak for Jerry, BTB? Be honest)). “would love to hear about this ‘whole new world we’re dealin’ with now.'”
        Hmm…I though that the “whole new world” business I was talkin’ about was clear from the context. But I guess not. So let me clarify the matter–the “whole new world” I was referring to is one in which “White Privilege” no longer rules. You know, BTB, a “whole new world” in which it is no longer acceptable to falsely smear a black-man, who is standing for the Presidency of the United states, as “a scam artist, a grifter, or fool”. A better world, in other words, I think you’ll agree, BTB.

      • Love that rant!!!
        I’m multi racial myself -and had the worst prejudice fro the lefty/green
        professors ans students in my university days…
        -Trying to pigeonhole me .. Brown doesn’t deserve to carry Dr. Carson’s
        Scalpels.

      • 2 questions for the numb nuts gov:
        1) what is he planning to do about the forests in the Maritime Provinces where the Prius batteries are made? They are dying from acid in the atmosphere down wind from the plants. They are causing acid rain in NY.
        2) I don’t know but would like to know for my sociology course, do male Prius drivers have to sit down to pee? (Inquiring minds want to know!)

    • Hey Jerry!
      Look, guy, I know I was a little rough on you with my last comment, and everything, though I think we both agree that you deserved every bit of it. But since I’m such a nice guy, I’m gonna cut you a huss, Jerry, and clue you in on how it’s done so that you don’t look like such a dumb-ass the next time you want to pretentiously sling a little of that Lysenko-grade, climate-change, hive-“science” B. S. that so grips you in its cult-like clutches.
      “mike’s (talkin’ about moi, not the other guy) trick”, you might say, is to limit your future “scientific paper” references to only those “scientific papers” that support the hive-bozo eco-orthodoxy, of course, and that also meet all of the following additional criteria:
      -The scientific paper’s data, methodologies, and all discussions, including all e-mail chit-chat, that contributed to the production of the paper are publicly available, either before or at the time of the publication’s release.
      -The scientific paper’s data, methodologies and inferences have all been thoroughly vetted, replicated, and tested for cogency, and survived that scrutiny, by an independent cadre of highly qualified scientists, with no conflicts of interest, real or in appearance; incentivized to find error in other’s work; and compensated at least as well as the author(s) of the relevant paper.
      -The scientific paper’s author(s) have demonstrated that they are not a bunch of brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggy CO2-spewers, whose lifestyle is actively KILLING BABIES!!! and KILLING POLAR BEARS!!!, with a documented employment history that shows, for example, that they only attend those group-think, carbon-phobe Gaia-gabfests that are held as zero-carbon video-conferences, and that they otherwise PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!–THAT THEY LEAD FROM THE FRONT BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON REDUCTION, BOTH PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL!!!
      So, Jerry, let me now wrap up this whole pitch–you come up with 30,000 “scientific papers” and 800 scientist that meet the requirements of the above criteria, buddy-boy, and you’re gonna wipe the deck with us denier-scum–I personally guarantee it. And, oh by the way Jerry, how many of the 800 scientists and 30,000 “scientific papers” that you referenced in your pissy little creep-out letter to Dr. Carson, survived the above screen? huh?

      • Mike:
        You ought to use his proper title: Governor Moonbeam.
        BTW, Mahatma Gandhi is on the side of the few
        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/mahatma-gandhi-quote-for-skeptics/
        “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”
        ― Mahatma Gandhi

      • This is what you and all climate change deniers sound like to normal people.
        https://youtu.be/3iBLlksqztg
        [Seriously, is that the best you can do? Hang around for a while and join in the discussions, read some articles, hell you could even contribute an article if you want to. In the meantime you probably haven’t converted many folk around here to your point of view . . mod]

      • Lordy, Gordy! No one here will argue with you about climate change, it it a fact of life. It’s been happening since the beginning of time. Nothing new about it.
        What’s new is the ideological agenda that man can somehow influence it by commanding the process of combustion. man’s production of combustion byproducts in the western US is currently being dwarfed by the King’s Canyon rough fire.
        http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/4456/
        Since you are here to show us our fallacy, perhaps you can explain how the great glaciers of this planet did most of their melting before the Romans built their empire, or why carbon dioxide does not raise nighttime temperatures in the same manner as water vapor concentrations.
        Those who believe that climate was static before the industrial age are the unfortunate victims of the new fundamentalism who, unfortunately will also readily believe that the coming global cooling shares the same anthropogenic causality as the current consensus proven, model directed warming.
        Your naive opinion about what normal folks must think and lack of factual citation backing that opinion make me wonder if you might be Ben the Wottsup guy.

      • Reminds me of an Einstein quote which I don’t remember exactly. A reporter asked Einstein about a letter written by a group of physicists who disagreed with one of Einstein’s papers. Einstein’s response, “If I am wrong, it would only take one to prove it.”

      • “””””…..
        Gord James
        September 13, 2015 at 3:01 am
        This is what you and all climate change deniers sound like to normal people. …..””””
        So that accounts for the “deniers” and also for the “normal people”.
        So how does it sound to you, Gord ??
        Izzat a typo there; did you insert an (r) by mistake ??

      • Mike,
        Anger is a useless emotion. It only gets people in trouble, because when you’re angry, you’re not thinking, i.e. road rage, cop killing (both ways), war.
        You and I probably consider ourselves reasonable people. Reasonable people believe that they can come to some kind of agreement concerning a difficult matter. There is no optimal line of reasoning. Therefore to be reasonable one has to be flexible, but it is very difficult to be flexible, particularly when one believes that they are being reasonable. So back to you and me, two reasonable people. I say there is global warming and you say that’s baloney, there is no global warming. Now I say, trying to be reasonable, suppose that you are 75% sure of no global warming and that there is only a 25% chance of global warming (it’s not possible to be 100% sure of anything, unless one is an idiot, and they don’t count). Here is the question, are you willing to risk the welfare of the planet on your 75% probability that there is no climate change? You have said do nothing, it’s too expensive. That’s not true. It’s only too expensive for the fossil fuel companies. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have no electric bill and will never have one. Why gamble the world, because you think you know something? It doesn’t make sense.

      • bobthebear
        September 13, 2015 at 12:56 pm

        “Anger is a useless emotion. It only gets people in trouble, because when you’re angry, you’re not thinking, i.e. road rage, cop killing (both ways), war.
        You and I probably consider ourselves reasonable people. [,,,]So back to you and me, two reasonable people. I say there is global warming and you say that’s baloney, there is no global warming.” […]

        Here is a flaw in your thinking bobthebear. I think you’ll find many skeptics who acknowledge that the Earth has been warming in recent centuries since the Little Ice Age, and also more generally since the great Ice Sheets withdrew from the continental land masses just a dozen or so millennia ago.
        It works like this: more ice = colder, less ice = warmer, so there is entirely no dispute that we’ve had a great deal of global warming over the course of time when Homo sapiens was getting all civilized.
        So yes, there has been global warming. Otherwise, we’d either be living under the ice, or on it, like that chap Bellini who’s planning on setting up camp in his trick sphere atop an iceberg, to record its suffering, or something, while it melts.
        So you’re worried about global warming, and I’m not. Since you’re worried about it, here’s your chance to tell us all the answer to this burning question about which you fear we are gambling the future of the planet:
        When it has ever been too warm for humans on planet Earth?

      • @ bobthebear
        I enjoyed your comment BTB-it brought back some really groovy memories and even had me givin’ “Ina-Gadda-Da-Vida” (vinyl, of course) a full-blast spin and breakin’ out my priceless collection of “Age of Aquarius” love-beads.
        But let me “reasonably” meet you half way, with this proposal, BTB. Instead of you urging all your “reasonableness” on li’l ol’ vanishingly-small-carbon-foot-print moi, why don’t you instead direct it to those who are really convinced, or so they say, that CO2 is KILLING BABIES!!! and KILLING POLAR BEARS!!!? And, of course I’m talkin’ about all those carbon-phobes like Al Gore; eco-flake Hollywood-phonies; ivory-tower, enabler-hack, Gruber-clone trough-suckers; make-a-greenwashed-buck opportunists; and all your lefty pals who, up to their old tricks, as usual, are trying to sneak in their hellish, dystopian, thrill-cull grand designs under the guise of savin’ the world from DEMON-CARBON!!!
        And after you’ve convinced your hive-betters, BTB, to give up all their multiple, batchelor-pad mansions; their yachts that dwarf their privately-owned, Caribbean Islands; their fleets of bullet-proof stretch-limos; and their private-jets and frequent-flyer jet-set lifestyles, then you’ll have my attention. And if–a mighty big if–you then convince all those tenured-parasites that jet about the globe, spewing CO2, attending one Gaia-gabfest, after another, to hold their little hive-swarm, grab-ass bonding-sessions as zero-carbon video-conferences, then I’ll even concede that you have a point.
        And I know, BTB, that you’re just the sort of modern-day Savonarola, we need to convince your hive-masters to consign their carbon-toys and pleasures to a low-carbon “bonfire of the vanities”. I mean, like, in contrast with so many of your lefty pals, you, BTB, are not one who is afraid to bite the hand that feeds you or to offend the owner(s) of any hive-butt(s) you just might happen to be smooching on a regular basis. You’re the man!, BTB!
        On the other hand, BTB, if you can’t even convince Al Gore to give up his money-grubbing, brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggeries–convince Al to PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES!!!TO LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON REDUCTION!!!– then, forgive me for being blunt, but what the hell good are you? And, in which case, BTB, get the hell out of my face!–pretty please, that is.

      • Hey BTB!
        I neglected to add to my last:
        P. S. Quit puttin’ words in my mouth–O. K., guy? Otherwise, Peace, Brother–I can dig it!

      • BobtheBear says: “Now I say, trying to be reasonable, suppose that you are 75% sure of no global warming and that there is only a 25% chance of global warming (it’s not possible to be 100% sure of anything, unless one is an idiot, and they don’t count). Here is the question, are you willing to risk the welfare of the planet on your 75% probability that there is no climate change? … Why gamble the world, because you think you know something? It doesn’t make sense.”
        I’m willing to go nuclear, and so are other skeptics. I recommend reading Prescription for the Planet to see one way this might work. I’d be happy to see inducements to insulate houses better, and to discourage certain sorts of waste. I’ve written a long article on how to encourage the use of electric-powered yard tools in place of gas-powered ones. Most of us also favor gov’t.-funded investments in breakthrough new-energy research, as urged by Bjorn Lomborg (sp?).
        So it’s a straw man to say that skeptics are a do-nothing party. Most are a no-regrets party and/or a wait-and-see party.
        To conclude, he wrote, “Why gamble the world, because you think you know something? It doesn’t make sense.” But we aren’t gambling. We know that developing countries won’t cut their emissions, which are growing so strongly that the West’s emissions reductions won’t make much of a difference–they’ll only delay doomsday by a year or two. So there’s no need to cut our throats sooner than that.

      • @ Rogerknights,
        What evidence is there that a few degrees of warming are any threat at all?
        There is none.
        Why should anyone think that warming would be anything but beneficial?
        There is every reason to believe that it would be so.
        Why should anyone believe that there is a shred of evidence that increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is dangerous?
        There is none, and in fact there is considerable evidence, likely enough to be considered proof, that more CO2 will be highly beneficial to agriculture and, in fact, a huge benefit the entire biosphere.
        Many skeptics believe that any purported evidence that disaster is looming is entirely fabricated.
        Many, such as myself, bristle at the notion of anyone resuming to speak for the lot of skeptics while lending any credence to the notion that doomsday is nigh.
        I think you had best speak for yourself, sir.
        You darn sure do not speak for me.

      • @Menicholas: You wrote:

        What evidence is there that a few degrees of warming are any threat at all?
        There is none.

        Nonsense. A few degrees of warming would, eventually, melt a lot of ice in Greenland, warm the oceans, and lead to a few feet, or even yards, of sea level rise, which would be catastrophically costly.

        Why should anyone think that warming would be anything but beneficial?
        There is every reason to believe that it would be so.

        See above. (Also, we don’t know enough to say, “There is every reason to believe that it would be so.” That kind of cockiness is 50% of what’s wrong with the Other Side.)

        Why should anyone believe that there is a shred of evidence that increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is dangerous?

        There are plenty of shreds–look at SkS, etc. They’re held together with inferences, extrapolations, cherry-picking, dodgy data, etc.; but it’s an overstatement to say there are no shreds.

        There is none, and in fact there is considerable evidence, likely enough to be considered proof, that more CO2 will be highly beneficial to agriculture and, in fact, a huge benefit the entire biosphere.

        Except for sea level rise..

        Many skeptics believe that any purported evidence that disaster is looming is entirely fabricated.

        “Mostly” or “substantially” fabricated would be more accurate words. A lot of the evidence is ambiguous–how it looks depends on how you squint at it. Misinterpreting is what warmists are mostly guilty of, not fabricating.

        Many, such as myself, bristle at the notion of anyone resuming to speak for the lot of skeptics while lending any credence to the notion that doomsday is nigh.

        We don’t know enough to say doomsday is not nigh. We have to think in game-theory terms of likelihood times value-at-risk. The value at risk is multi-trillions. Modest-cost insurance policies are “no-regret” measures that most contrarians would accept, especially in the current environment, where the political climate is such that something must be done. (Other insurance measures that I’d have favored, although being skeptical of the danger, are the Montreal protocol against fluorocarbons and reasonable measures to curtail the excessive use of DDT.)

        I think you had best speak for yourself, sir.
        You darn sure do not speak for me.

        I’m an old-timer here. I’m familiar with the thinking of most contrarians here. Their leading objection to moving to renewables isn’t that AGW theory is wrong, as you imply, but that such a move would be economically disastrous, futile (because developing countries won’t cut their emissions), and counterproductive (because industry would move offshore). People here would strongly prefer nuclear energy and funding breakthrough energy research to what alarmists are proposing, based on what I’ve read here. Most of them lack your absolutist, black/white mindset. (This blog’s guidelines deprecates postings from those sky-dragon types who think CO2 has no effect on temperature, which is another form of absolute-mindedness.) They’re reasonable, in other words. They’re willing to pay a reasonable insurance premium against an unlikely risk–especially if the only practical alternative is to pay a gigantic premium.
        (Maybe Anthony should post a poll on our preferences on this matter.)

        • Menicholas: You wrote:
          What evidence is there that a few degrees of warming are any threat at all?
          There is none.

          Nonsense. A few degrees of warming would, eventually, melt a lot of ice in Greenland, warm the oceans, and lead to a few feet, or even yards, of sea level rise, which would be catastrophically costly.

          Not true. There is, perhaps, a 0% – 10% chance of continued cooling from today’s 1996-2015 plateau.
          There is a 15-25% chance of a continued plateau.
          There is a 15-25% chance of a 1 degree rise in global average temeprature by 2100. Which will NOT result in any increase in the Greenland ice cap or Antarctic ice caps.
          There is a 15-25% chance of a 1 – 2 degree rise in global average temeprature by 2100. Which “might result” in a small increase in the Greenland ice cap or Antarctic ice cap melt rate, which might increase today’s sea level continuous sea level rise from 2.0 mm/year to 2.1 mm/year. Which will NOT result in ANY increase in cost of abatement or repair.
          There is a 5-15% chance of a 2 – 3 degree rise in global average temeprature by 2100. Which “might result” in a small increase in the Greenland ice cap or Antarctic ice cap melt rate, which might increase today’s sea level continuous sea level rise from 2.0 mm/year to 2.2 mm/year. Which will NOT result in ANY increase in any substantial cost of abatement or repair.
          There is a 0-5% chance of a 3 – 4 degree rise in global average temeprature by 2100. Which “might result” in a small increase in the Greenland ice cap or Antarctic ice cap melt rate, which might increase today’s sea level continuous sea level rise from 2.0 mm/year to 2.3 mm/year. Which will NOT result in ANY substantial increase in cost of abatement or repair.
          In contrast, destructive and deliberate efforts to stop carbon burning WILL kill millions of people every year from its beginning in 2000 through 2100. And will which will NOT change any part of the earth’s natural rise from its low in 1650 back to its previous warm spots in 1100 – 1250. And that in the Roman era. and before that in the Minoan era.

      • Notice how BTB first lies about what skeptics believe, then he makes a proposition that relies on his quaint little belief that any warming, is by definition devastating.
        To him it doesn’t matter whether the planet warms by 0.2C or 20.0C. It’s all the same. We’re gonna die.

        • I just looked over my comment. Please point out to me where I lied. And secondly, where did you come up with the idea that I believe that any rise in temperature would be devastating to the planet? You are not being fair in be judgmental about what I said, putting words in someone’s mouth is beneath you.

      • RogerKnights, I know that the world isn’t going to warm up by more than 2C. I am quite confident that it won’t warm more than about 0.2C.
        Since neither of those is enough to worry about, I am quite content doing nothing.

      • RogerKnights demonstrates that he is as much an alarmist as BTB.
        1) 2C of warming wouldn’t even come close to melting the ice in Greenland.
        2) He uses the fact that the nutcases at SkS beleive somethings as proof that there is reason to believe the same things.
        Sheesh, buy some big boy pants and grow a pair.
        Almost 19 years of no warming is sufficient to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is at best a bit player in the climate system.
        Add to that the proven benefits of a few degrees of warming and enhanced CO2, and there is nothing for you to worry about.

      • MarkW September 14, 2015 at 3:59 pm
        RogerKnights, I know that the world isn’t going to warm up by more than 2C. I am quite confident that it won’t warm more than about 0.2C.

        We don’t know enough about the climate system to be that certain. “Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is absurd.” (Voltaire)

        Since neither of those is enough to worry about, I am quite content doing nothing.

        The political situation demands that something be done. Some of those somethings, like wind and solar, are much more costly and risky than others, like advanced nuclear or some breakthrough energy source. If we try to turn the herd away from rushing toward the first something and toward the second, we may succeed in saving the world. If we tell the herd that they are wrong to get alarmed and stampede, we’ll get trampled.

        MarkW September 14, 2015 at 4:03 pm
        RogerKnights demonstrates that he is as much an alarmist as BTB.
        1) 2C of warming wouldn’t even come close to melting the ice in Greenland.

        It will certainly melt some of the ice, which is all I claimed. I wasn’t saying, as your statement seems to imply, that it will melt all of it.

        2) He uses the fact that the nutcases at SkS believe somethings as proof that there is reason to believe the same things.

        All I said was that warmists such as “the nutcases at SkS” do have “shreds” of evidence, contrary to my opponent’s overstated claim that they have none. Here’s what I said: “There are plenty of shreds–look at SkS, etc. They’re held together with inferences, extrapolations, cherry-picking, dodgy data, etc.; but it’s an overstatement to say there are no shreds.”

  1. Jerry and the Pope are both Jesuits their politics are intended to harm the poor while inflating their righteous egos. That is politics.

  2. The Bill, if it had passed would not have only hurt poor people but all facets of society. The whole economy of California. I wonder if Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown would have stationed armed guards at the border to stop people from driving out of state to load up their cars and trucks with gas cans and 55 gallon drums of gasoline coming back home. Would’ve been like prohibition except for 95 % of the population opposed to it and really angry at not being able to get where they need to go half the time and even then paying huge $ just to get there. California would’ve sunk further in the crap and there would’ve been some big revolts. Maybe they should have passed it. Those greenies who did would have been recalled and some more sensible people would have been elected in their place.
    I live in Los Angeles and would’ve been really pissed. Sorry, can’t take the kids to the doctor because our gas voucher is used up, etc, etc.

      • $1.98@my station, $1.89 in Tappahannock, VA. West Point, VA usually a few pennies lower but can’t verify this week.

      • Hmmmm.
        £1.11 per litre at a gas/petrol station I passed today.
        PS – way down from last winter; thank you Saudi Arabia and the frackers!
        Per XE.com – the £-$ rate is about 1.54.
        So – about $1.71/litre.
        I believe about 3.6 litres to a US gallon – so, about $5.75 per US gallon in the UK.
        I filled up in France, yesterday, when it was 1.11 Euros/litre (coincidentally) median rate about 1.13 – so US1.25/litre
        About $4.51 per US Gallon.
        Auto – not whinging, ‘cos I’m paying less than for many months . . .

    • If you noticed, he promised to shove it down our throats anyway through the process of beauracratic regulation of the air resources board.

    • Here in Florida, we are dipping down towards the $2.00 mark. Yesterday saw that the 7-Eleven’s are at $2.13. Wholesale RBOB for the forward month bottomed at $1.23/gallon on 8/26, before rebounding to near $1.50. Dipping again now, with price down nearly 2% on Friday to end at $1.375/gallon. With the end of the summer driving season, price could go either way…depending on how refiners play it.
      Diesel is now averaging at or slightly below the price for regular unleaded, after years and years of being nearly $1 more.

      • When I was a kid, diesel used to less than 3/4ths the price of gasoline. (This was before unleaded.)
        Then in the 1980’s Detroit started making diesel cars, and demand went up.

      • @ MarkW, I have always wondered about this, Isn’t diesel cheaper to produce ( refine) than gasoline. I am not sure what all the steps are but I think that the improvement in Gals/mile from gas to diesel would offset the demand as well or has the changes in sulfur regs changed the price and cost of the refining process?

      • It’s neither more expensive nor less expensive to produce. When you crack oil to get gasoline, you also get diesel as well as all the other distillates. The best you can do is to tune the process to get slightly more of some and slightly less of others. The cost is for process and the result of the process is a whole bunch of things. The oil companies then take what they have distilled and try to sell all of it for as much as they can get. Back in the days when truckers were just about the only ones buying diesel, low demand meant that the oil companies weren’t getting much for it.
        BTW, in a rational world, diesel would cost about 20% more than gasoline since you can get about 20% more energy out of it than you can gasoline.

  3. So, I sez to myself: “Dis is a big deal. I wonder what TalkingPointsMemo.com has to say about dis earth shaking development.” And what does I hear? Nothin, crickets chirping dere everloving hearts out, but udderwize zip. Does dey tink dis ain’t even important enough to mention? I am seriously perplexed.
    (Apologies to the Dogfather)

  4. 80% below 1990 levels?
    Why not go for a stretch target like 110% below.
    The warmers do not actually understand the theory and the basic math behind any of the issues. Cut emissions by 50% and CO2 stabilizes. Cut emissions by 0% and nothing much happens just like the last 18 years. Do people get elected based on a CO2 reduction plan? You have to a moonbeam to believe the voters like a plan like that.

  5. Looks like Corbyn may have been influenced by his brother Piers after all…. quote from British tabloid “While the Independent describes Piers as believing that “humans have no role in climate change and that the Met Office, media and ‘corrupt scientists’ are ‘brainwashing’ the public as part of a Qatar-run conspiracy to keep oil prices high,”

      • Obama is a Fu**ing traitor and his goal is to destroy the United States. Simple as that. He’s got a knife at the throats of a lot of our elected and if anyone can’t see it they are blind.

    • In his first speech, which was at a rally in support of accepting more migrants into the UK, Corbyn said that they are “victims of war, victims of environmental degradation and victims of poverty”.
      He clearly hasn’t listened to his brother

      • Old’un, old soul,
        Some truly – a r e – victims of war.
        I WELCOME THOSE – IF THEY WILL WORK, AND MOST, ALMOST ALL, WILL!
        If Cameron, and his crew, had any idea, he would be able to offer full UK citizenship – subject to working.
        Working for many will be building their own houses, on land appropriated, with due recompense, outside, but adjacent to, each community in the UK, and then, briefly, helping others within the community they have joined. And learning English.
        No need to follow cricket!
        [Qualified refugees should be allowed to do other work – medicine [with their compatriots, or generally, if their English is good enough], architecture, bionics, zoogeography or whatever.
        Now, in the UK there are, perhaps, 40,000 communities [definitions define numbers – a guided (arm-waving?) guess at best].
        If every community [let us say above twelve houses or forty people in size] took one house [so one family], and bigger ones more – up to the London Borough of Croydon (population about 400,000) taking 25 families, building 25 houses – we could house maybe 100,000 families.
        House (as a verb)? Yes.
        Educate?
        And find jobs for [after the house-building phase]?
        Health service . . . . etc.
        Some cost.
        Some adjustment.
        And some winnowing to find the real refugees, I suspect.
        Tonight, ‘Germany is closing its border with Austria’.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34239674
        ‘Temporary border controls’ is the phrase used.
        Is it legitimate to ask here what Syrians’ co-religionists have done?
        Possibly – some are doing huge amounts, but I notice there seems to be an apparently small flow of refugees to, say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
        Pakistan, generally, is certainly warmer than, say, Cleveland, in Northern England.
        Just saying!
        No – I’m not addressing: –
        “victims of environmental degradation and victims of poverty”
        My bile runneth over at the emotional heart-stringing that those phrases mean!
        Auto, in the most diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural city in the known universe, and happily so!

  6. Hmmm. Check! Your move. The wave of apprehension this will send through the warmunists camp will be serious(brace for the ear splitting squeal of stuck pigs). The fact that the Democrat block can be cracked by this issue is huge. There is no coming back from this change. It means that those in government who know the facts also know that their constituents know the facts to, or at least to some degree and are willing to express their misgivings. Californians already know they pay more for gasoline, electricity, water, etc. etc. all for some reasons that they have thought necessary for their California life style. But surcharging “carbon” isn’t something you want to be kicking about when there isn’t any real need for it. Everyone living in California knows there are plenty of real and quite serious problems to be dealt with. Californians think of themselves as superior to the rest of the country for any number of reasons, but leadership in stupidity may not be on their list.

  7. What’s “green” about ridiculously expensive energy?
    Using the term “green” is simply helping the GE/Siemens propaganda machine.

  8. Somebody let the cat out of the bag. Given California’s record of driving businesses out of the State, my primary suspect is the major labor unions who may have finally connected the dots. Brown himself couldn’t connect s*** to st*nk.

    • Every morning while flushing the toilet, I say “bye, bye Jerry” and it works, now if everybody in the “Golden State” did the same ?

      • The Germans who lived in Russia during the later half of the 18-hundreds often said the same thing about the Russian Tsar. If someone happened to be asked where they’d been after visiting the outhouse, they’d often say, “I just dumped the Tsar!”

  9. Yes this is so, but what Democrats try to do is have things both ways. Give back to the Green Lobby, but then find subsidies that will prevent the poor from becoming more so over expensive energy. The trouble is that increasing the cost of energy will increase the cost of everything, making subsidies to the poor very tricky to implement, but also makes escaping poverty more difficult because a larger portion of one’s income is subsidies. The inevitable damage to the economy also hurts anyone hoping to find a job or advance to better jobs.

    • More and more people are deciding that only suckers work for a living.
      The rich are also starting to leave the US in larger numbers. I wonder how fast that will increase if the leftists get taxes up to the 80-90% levels they have been demanding?

      • Ditto the UK if new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has his way.
        ‘Higher’ taxes . . . . .
        Under Harold Wilson, the maximum tax rate for ‘unearned income’ – from investments from taxed income, say – was 97,5% – plus an unearned income supplement of 30% = 127,5%
        About that time the UK succumbed to a hysteria about the ‘Brain Drain’.
        Surely not a hysteria.
        Surely not causally connected!
        Auto – with an elephant’s memory.

  10. 80% less than 1990 would be about 1820 level emissions. They make these percentages up out of thin air, or, rather, while smoking something they would not admit to. Mentioning 1990, hides the fact that they are actually talking about moving their state back to the stone ages. It’s clear misdirection and completely hostile to all people.

    • They make these percentages up out of thin air
      That’s true in spade. Hence 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050. They are idiots. We know it but they don’t. I fact, their greenie partners are telling them they are geniuses

    • I don’t think it is possible smoking the magic weed can make you that stupid. To be that stupid I think suggests fanaticism where physics, math and reality in general can all be suspended based on one’s belief.

      • They live in a cartoon universe of fantasy futurism.
        I honestly believe this is a large part of it.
        They see these little drawings and pictures of some wonderful future utopia, and think they can tap their heels together and wish real hard and it will be real.
        Once people understand that they are being lied to and surreptitiously robbed by the politicians they are electing, there will be hell to pay.
        Finding that the friend, who has his right arm around your shoulder, is picking your pocket with his left hand will come as a shock, but everyone knows what lying is and when they have been cheated, once they open their eyes to it.

      • I was talking to an electric car enthusiast a few years ago. He insisted that if we wanted to, we could invent a batter that could power an electric car, be charged in less than 5 minutes and would cost less than current batteries.
        He claimed that if we could improve computers several thousand fold over the last 50 years, we could do so with batteries as well. We just lacked the will to do it.

      • Maybe the California Oil Refiners tapped him on the back and reminded him that California is the 4th largest refiner of crude in the US. AND until recently, the ONLY State allowed to export crude oil to non-US destinations around the Pacific Rim. Oh the hypocrisy and ignorance.
        Not sure how current the production numbers are:
        California oil refineries –
        Bakersfield Refinery (Alon USA), Bakersfield, 66,000 bbl/d (10,500 m3/d) (Temporarily shut down)
        Bakersfield Refinery (Kern Oil & Refining Co), Bakersfield, 26,000 bbl/d (4,100 m3/d)
        Bakersfield Refinery (San Joaquin Refining Co), Bakersfield,15,000 bbl/d (2,400 m3/d)
        Benicia Refinery (Valero), Benicia, 132,000 bbl/d (21,000 m3/d)
        Carson Refinery (Tesoro), Carson,226,000 bbl/d (35,900 m3/d) (Tentatively sold to Tesoro)
        El Segundo Refinery (Chevron), El Segundo, 276,000 bbl/d (43,900 m3/d)
        Golden Eagle Refinery (Tesoro), Martinez, 166,000 bbl/d (26,400 m3/d)
        Los Angeles Refinery (Phillips 66), Wilmington, 139,000 bbl/d (22,100 m3/d)
        Los Angeles Refinery (Tesoro), Wilmington, 103,800 bbl/d (16,500 m3/d)
        Martinez Refinery (Royal Dutch Shell), Martinez,156,400 bbl/d (24,870 m3/d)
        Paramount Refinery (Paramount Petroleum), Paramount, 54,000 bbl/d (8,600 m3/d) (Temporarily shut down)
        Richmond Refinery (Chevron) (Chevron), Richmond, 245,271 bbl/d (38,995.0 m3/d)
        San Francisco Refinery (Phillips 66), Rodeo, 120,200 bbl/d (19,110 m3/d)
        Santa Maria Refinery (Greka Energy), Santa Maria, 9,500 bbl/d (1,510 m3/d)
        South Gate Refinery (Lunday Thagard Co), South Gate, 8,500 bbl/d (1,350 m3/d)
        Torrance Refinery (ExxonMobil), Torrance, 149,500 bbl/d (23,770 m3/d)
        Wilmington Refinery (Valero), Wilmington, 78,000 bbl/d (12,400 m3/d)

  11. It’s too late for California in general I think, but I welcome this sane stand none the less.
    Recall that Australia is paying a billion dollars per year just to maintain their unused desalination plants. Why? Because the green fascists predicted unending doubts.
    What a waste and unfair burden on those who are least able to pay. Think of the good that money could have been used for, including staying in tax payer pockets.

    • I’m actually going to defend those desalination plants. At least they built something useful based on a prediction that actually addressed the matter at hand.
      While the prediction did not come true, and was based on extremely poor methodology in the first place, the desalination plants may prove useful in the future in the case of a long drought or population growth.
      More to the point, they actually and meaningfully addressed the issue that they predicted would happen. To compare, even if they succeeded, these California carbon cuts won’t have measurable effects. The desalination issue was a forgivable lack of competence. The carbon cuts is an unforgivable mental dissonance

      • If the Greens in Australia would permit dams to be built, there would be no possible use for the desalination plants. The cost of the dams would be a fraction of the money spent on the mothballed plants.

      • If these plants are moth balled for 10 or 20 years, it is not simply the cost of maintaining them whilst mothballed, two further issues are raised: First, what will be the re-commissioning cost, and second, will they work after all the time that has elapsed?
        Further technology moves on. If these plants are not needed say before 2035/2040, there may then be better and less costly means of obtaining potable water.

      • Ben, Great point. At least if you build something that can make something useful like water you have an asset.
        The climate loons are pushing policies that at the end of the day only take and destroy, like the destruction of the coal industry or the parasitic useless windmills and large scale solar that will be monuments to frivolous waste and hubris.

      • Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying they were a good idea. However, they were built in good faith.
        There’s quite a difference between foolishness and hypocrisy.

      • That 1B a year could just as well have been spent building a humongous field of mirrors to focus on the ice sheet when it comes ashore. Never know; OZ might need it, so lets build it now.
        Do I need to tag this?

      • CA has spent money, that might have been used for desal plants or dams, and used it for trains that no one will use.
        So they have not even prepared if the droughts do continue unabated.
        And make no mistake…Australia will have droughts in the future, bad ones, medium ones, small ones, and great big humongous ones…just like always.
        Same in California. The climate has not changed in any permanent or unprecedented way…just cycling through, wet then dry, same as it ever was.
        Droughts are not caused by human activity, and neither are they one off events, and neither are they rare in places like California or Australia.

      • If they don’t need the water from them, then they are by definition not useful, even if they do work as designed.

  12. Hard to imagine this pull back is really coming from the political classes. So, one might assume it’s a response to pressure from the low and middle class voters. Maybe those folks are waking up to the fact that Democrats have been screwing them for years, on a host of issues, not just the green energy bandwagon. If and when they realize the extent of that exploitation, voters will be looking to hand out punishment.

    • Politician being the lying, deceitful scum that they are, respond only to the potential loss of their power / egos.

  13. 12 Sept: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Bad luck Greenies, this wind farm has bitten the dust
    Despite the axing of one madcap scheme, the Government still shows no sign of a sensible strategy for keeping the lights on
    To the rage of the Greenies and the delight of countless thousands of local residents, the Government announced on Friday its rejection of the £3.6 billion scheme by a Franco-Dutch consortium to build a monster wind farm covering up to 76 square miles of sea between Dorset and the Isle of Wight, blocking off some of the most valued sea views in southern England…
    Yet on one still day last week, when coal was still providing nearly 25 per cent of our electricity, the output of all our 5,500 wind turbines put together was just 0.6GW, or less than one per cent of the power we were using. Which illustrates precisely the point that those in charge of our energy policy seem incapable of understanding…READ ON…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11859814/Bad-luck-Greenies-this-wind-farm-has-bitten-the-dust.html

    • Taking into account,
      installation, subsides, maintenance costs, weather, etc, if 5,500 wind turbines produce 0.6GW of power , providing ALL electric power from wind would cost the average household £50,000 a month ( wind willing )

  14. My ancestors came to California in 1848 and lived all over the state and today we are all gone, none of us are left, I came all the way to the East Coast.
    This push to eliminate all energy systems except for a few will drive the remainder out. I cannot imagine how anyone will live there in the future. On the other hand…this doesn’t surprise me much.

    • My ancestor went straight back home to his wife and family with the gold from the Rush. Of course. (:
      He made two gold rings and acquired eighty more acres.
      That sounds like work to me. So does his joining the Union in his 60’s. That was old Elias.

      • emsnews says, “My ancestors came to California in 1848 and lived all over the state and today we are all gone, none of us are left, I came all the way to the East Coast.”
        The humor in the comment by emsnews may be lost on non-US readers. California is the state which got its greatest influx of settlers because of the Gold Rush. The Gold Rush started in the 1849. That is why we have football teams named the ’49ers — and that is a good mnemonic device to remember the date.
        The Gold Rush resulted in quick wealth and all that the quick wealth attracts — saloons, prostitutes, scammers, gambling in which fortunes were lost, grocers who sold food at outrageous prices, and crooked scales. There were also very bad parts of the cities in the Bay which abducted people through holes in the floors of saloons, and cave systems below cities. These men and women were sold to slavery, mostly to be used on ships powered by sails. The need for men to set these sails at sea was enormous.
        Anytime California comes up, the history and actual lineage of the people who live there now, esp. in the Bay area, might spring to mind. California is a lot like our version of Australia, which was originally a penal colony.
        That is why I remarked that my g g g grandfather left with the money immediately to go back to the farm.

    • Reminds me of the story of my third cousin’s great uncle, on my mother’s side…Jebediah Springfield (full name of Jebediah Obadiah Zachariah Jedediah Springfield, ’twere.)
      After he was born in Axhandle, Virginny, twelfth of seventeen, he spent some time on the old homestead, before striking out on his own. The farm was becoming a hard place fer a yung-un in those days, you see.(His father Ned Springfield was a farmer who introduced yellow Eurasian late-summer squash to Eastern Virginia. While yellow Eurasian late-summer squash no longer grows in the part of the country, the yellow Eurasian late-summer squash beetle, one of nature’s hungriest pests, is still around to remind us of Mr. Springfield’s foresight.)
      Maybe some day I will tell y’all about how we used to wear an onion in our belts (As was the style of the times), you know…because of the war…

      • Now that you mention it, the yellow ones did seem to repel women rather strongly…the purple ones, not as much. Considering I used to get by primarily on my looks, it was rather a burden…but that’s high fashion for ya…

  15. Oh, I see. The Democrats are turning against the Green movement because they are so compassionate, because they care so much for the poor. What a splendorous load. Stopping the throwing away of monies is not heroic; a child could do better.

    • Oh come off it. They think they are doing the right thing. Their priorities are different than yours, and their understanding is also different.
      On climate, the propaganda for years has been how climate change hurts the poor. However, as we have creeped towards meaningful action on carbon reduction, the costs have skyrocketed, and it has become apparent who will bear the price. This eye-opening is how we will win the Democrats over. Most of them actually do care about the poor (or, being cynical, their votes), and they are appalled at how much these actions will hurt those least able to afford it.
      Angry sarcasm and scorn directed at the very people we need to convince will get us nowhere.
      They aren’t evil, just wrong. That used to be our motto.

      • Carbon reduction is meaningless by definition…we should in fact be planning ways to increase carbon to compensate for the loss of soil fertility caused by over farming and over fertilizing with chemicals.

      • Loss of soil fertility caused by over fertilizing?
        With chemicals?
        Newsflash…everything is “chemicals”.

      • Meaningful meaning that they will actually have an effect on CO2 emissions. What we have had for years is 10s of billions spent for effectively zero reductions. To cut 20% of our emissions would be hideously expensive. Cutting 80% of 1990 levels would mean effectively banning fire.

  16. Hey! Moonbeam’s shtick worked for him back in the 70’s. Can’t fault a guy for hoping enough people have died, left the state (me!), or forgotten Act 1 to trot out V2.03.
    Substance, schmubstance… We’re talkin’ polyticks here. Who needs something that actually makes sense, eh Guv? See you in Paris.
    /false ‘hail fellow well met’

    • Whoops! That’s an H.R. comment. I see that my email is correct but I must have tabbed into the name field and wiped out my H.R. with a VV when I was typing ‘Guv.’ Sorry ’bout that.
      (Actually, I kind of like the VV. It reminds me of the palm trees in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World. Seems apropos for today’s All CO2 Catastrophism, All the Time world.)

  17. “Yet this week 21 Democratic Assembly members representing middle- and low-income communities—including 11 blacks and Latinos—joined Republicans to kill a bill mandating a cut in state greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.”
    The middle class gets a mention. That’s good! Was it that hard to care about single-income families who are also most hurt by these $1000 increases in gas and food prices here
    and $1000 increases in costs and regulations there. What does every one have against people in the middle class raising a family and/or running a business? Why is it so gauche to care about us?

    • The math is simple, Zeke. Someone who makes $50,000 a year can take a $1000 increase in living expenses. It might be painful, but they can typically afford it with minor sacrifices. I’m certain we all can cut $80 a month out of our budget if necessary.
      Someone who makes $15,000 a year, can’t. At that level, $80 a month is big bucks. That is a full shift of minimum wage overtime (or going by Freakonomics, 3 days work for a drug dealer). That increase could mean cutting electricity, food, or clothing. Anything to keep the rent not too late. It’s an entirely different lifestyle. People that actually do need protecting from predatory legislation.

      • Someone who makes $15,000 per year is very likely receiving $12,000 per year in subsidies and will get another $1000 per year to help with energy costs. The increased subsidies make the climb out of dependence another $1000 higher.

      • I’d like you to talk to a few of my friends and relatives about the subsidies they receive. I’m certain that you could explain how they are receiving all of this free stuff when they are struggling to keep the roof over their head and the electricity on.
        Yes, some people abuse the system, and a number came in due to bad choices. A lot more were in there due to bad luck or circumstances. The situation in a lot of small towns is bad, with huge unemployment, the jobs to be had are poor (Walmart is considered a good reliable boss), and it’s a crushing spiral downwards once you get trapped.
        Your derision at the poor only shows your ignorance and despicable attitude.

      • Ben, you wrote:
        Your derision at the poor only shows your ignorance and despicable attitude.
        You didn’t say who you were replying to, KK or Zeke, and I didn’t notice any ‘derision’ or bad attitude from either of them.
        I think the basic problem is that half the population is now effectively on the dole: they pay no taxes, while receiving benefits (I’d say it’s the ‘takers vs the makers’, but I don’t want to deride anyone, and my attitude is bad enough already).
        The problem is that gov’t policies are growing that huge underclass. The “poor” used to be about 12% of the population as recently as the 1980’s. Now it’s half.
        This is deliberate, IMHO. People are impoverished by gov’t policies, then they are subsidized to ‘help’ them. For example, energy costs are artificially made to ‘skyrocket’, then politicians give the ones hardest hit subsidies to compensate. That makes for an indispensable and growing bureaucracy.
        They will never admit it, of course. But lots of politicians and bureaucrats love the fact that they hold the cookie jar, and get to give the handouts. That way, they can be the heroes saving the poor folks from the evil and rapacious capitalists — saving them with money taken from the same folks they like to demonize.
        The solution is as simple as it is impossible: slash the bureaucracy: eliminate the EPA, the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Education, etc. Except for Homeland Security, the rest should be local or state affairs. Security can be handled like it always has been: by the police, the National Guard, and the military. They are perfectly capable of doing the job, and much less likely to steal airline travelers blind while groping nuns.
        The growing underclass of people who make barely enough to live on, and who have no savings, is completely dependent on the government rather than on themselves and their circle of friends, associates, and self-help organizations that used to do the job, and that actually helped the poor to move up the economic ladder.
        Instead, Big Brother is there to give them — barely — enough to subsist on. Very few make it up the ladder any more. They are locked into dependence. And about 97% of the problem is caused by government.

  18. Noticed that the western section of IH10 in Houston is now the widest highway in the world. The influx from California is probably why….

    • Did I ever mention the time my cousin Bertha got stuck in the left hand lane of the DC Beltway…for three days?
      No one would let her over to get to the exit lane. Quite a time it was…we held up Thanksgiving dinner waiting for her as long as we could, but eventually Pappy said ” sc**w her!” And we ate anyway. Every one felt real bad at first, but when it dragged on with no word from her,we knew we had made the right call.

  19. If the state of California will supply me with an all electric car and a solar changing system to change it up then I will make use of it as much as possible. I cannot afford to pay anything for it so I want the State of California to pay for everything but where are they going to get the money?

      • Sure, If I am not using it and it is not chnaging just walk on over to my house. Remember that I specified a solar changing system so it needs time during daylight hours to charge up.

  20. Years ago I predicted that the green movement would splinter off from the degrowth movement over a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of CO2 and life on earth. Sadly, I am now beginning to understand why my prediction was wrong.

  21. 12 Sept: BBC: Brian Wheeler: The Jeremy Corbyn Story: Profile of Labour’s new leader
    His brother Piers, now a meteorologist known for denying climate change is a product of human activity, has described the Corbyn boys as “country bumpkins”.
    Corbyn disagrees with his brother on climate change but they remain close. They both learned their politics at the family dinner table, where left wing causes and social justice were a frequent topic of debate…
    Piers, who would go on to be a well known squatters leader in 1960s London, was even further to the left than Jeremy…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34184265
    8 Aug: UK Telegraph: Steven Swinford: Jeremy Corbyn: Labour could reopen coal mines and nationalise gas and electricity sector
    Britain should consider reopening coal mines and nationalising energy companies, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested. Mr Corbyn, the hard-Left candidate for the Labour leadership, has said that his admiration of Karl Marx has inspired his bid to become the Labour leader.
    However, City analysts said that his plans to renationalise the gas and electricity sector would cost the Government as much as £185 billion…
    Mr Corbyn suggested that he wanted to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” as he unveiled his energy policy. However, he kept open the possibility of reopening coal mines in South Wales with “clean burn technology”. …
    He said: “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.
    “But if there’s to be substantial coal fire generation it’s got to be clean burn technology, it’s got to have carbon filters on it, it’s got to be carbon neutral. I’ve looked at it, I’ve discussed it. It’s complicated. At one level it looks very expensive. But the advantages also look quite attractive.”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11791434/Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-could-reopen-coal-mines-and-nationalise-gas-and-electricity-sector.html

  22. benofhouston September 12, 2015 at 8:51 pm
    “Oh come off it. They think they are doing the right thing. Their priorities are different than yours, and their understanding is also different….
    They aren’t evil, just wrong.”
    Ben, I’m sure the Khmer Rouge thought they were doing the right thing when they drove people out of Cambodian cities and slaughtered one-third the population. And the jihadists certainly think they are right to torture and kill the infidels and sexually enslave girls as young as 7. Different priorities and understanding, don’cha know.
    Are they evil, or just wrong?

    • There’s been no warming in OZ because the Wizard banned all CO2 emissions. Dorothy and Toto are still freezing in those Kansas winters, and the Munchkins are starving because they are so poor they they have nothing to munch on. And the wicked witch still flies (in fact, she is running for US president).

  23. “Anyone who supports absurd green energy policies is the enemy of the world’s poor people.”
    Not a good position for the Pope to be in; a quick re-read of the New Testament required, I think!

  24. Not a lot of people know this – but even George Monbiot could clearly see that the absurdly structured “feed-in-tariff” (a.k.a. 10x the wholesale market leccy rate as a 25 year return for solar investors) was a stealth tax and a clear case of robbing the poor to give to the rich.
    Of course we can now see that the roof-top solar free cash giveaway was only really a sweetener to gain public acceptance for the far more costly off-shore wind cash giveaway.
    In the case of the latter scheme the beneficiaries are super-rich individuals some of whom sit in the House of Lords, and obviously the corps. who get the work – i.e. Vestas, G.E. Siemens, Halliburton et al.
    The people who will be paying most for this are those who through limited investment capital and limited roof-space or land ownership – have no access to the great cash giveaway. i.e. mostly poor people.
    Here is Monbiot on the topic. How strange that this slipped through the Grauniads pro-renewable editorial control. And when a supposedly “green” policy is too daft for Monbiot – then that means very daft indeed.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

    • Unhappily it was published over 5 years ago and had absolutely no effect during the subsequent 5 years of the “greenest ever in the history of the human race ” Coalition.

      • Sadly, you are correct, Mike.
        The scheme and those like it, all across the developed world have been deemed to be a “success”.
        Inasmuch as so many people in the upper strata of society stood to gain from the scheme that criticism of it amongst the political classes and amongst journalists became unacceptable and unwelcome behaviour.
        And – that is why the scheme met with no further resistance.
        Even though, in reality, it represented possibly the very most ineffective and expensive option for cutting the UK’s total CO2 output. Even if we assume that such a cut was a priority at the time.
        But I suppose that there could conceivably have been a CO2 reduction scheme that was less effective and more expensive.
        However, since I am not a professional politician, I am not naturally adept in developing and promoting the very stupidest idea that can be conceived of by the human mind.

  25. And yes, the Pope who supposedly wants poor people to be better off also wants them to be treated like the Khmer Rouge treated Cambodians. This schizophrenic policy of the Pope has to be attacked frontally by anyone who has any mercy for the very poor.
    Just like with the refugee issue: all over Europe for the last five years, services, hospitals, food etc has all been cut back hurting poor citizens and suddenly the same leaders who did this are opening the public purse and importing a million Muslims mostly males, giving them for free everything they are taking away from the poor who are already citizens.
    This has been covered up by media praising this but I read comments and such and the fury at the bottom of society is broiling hot mad.
    Couple this with the meeting in Europe in November as the snow begins to fly to order huge taxes on energy and cuts on social services in the name of global warming and revolts, race riots and terror attacks are going to multiply rapidly in Europe while Putin laughs his head off and the Chinese will snicker.

    • Yes, this anti-science, anti-humanist, anti-Christian encyclical will go down as one of the worst mistakes a Pope has ever made. Sadly, I think his heart was in the right place but that advisers he has trusted far too much have pushed through terrible counsel.

      • It was revealed in the recent US TV presentation of Catholics humiliating themselves in front of him that Francis has never operated a computer, has no modern (or probably even ancient) technological savvy. The only real question is whether the choice of this particular figurehead by the cardinals was intentional, or simply serendipitous.

      • “The only real question is whether the choice of this particular figurehead by the cardinals was intentional, or simply serendipitous.”
        That $100 billion per year handout to the third world would look good to the third-world cardinals who are now a majority. Some of that money would pass thru their hands. It’s possible that those cardinals selected Francis after determining that he was a hard-core greenie–or, if not, that he would act like one if handed the papacy. It’s likely that their lobbying had an effect on Benedict’s greenie proclamations and other actions. The Vatican realizes that the center of gravity of Catholicism is shifting to the tropics. So there’s an unstoppable tendency at work. Only a prolonged cold snap will counter it effectively.

      • Today in an interview on a Portugese radio station, he all but declared that capitalism is the reason for the refugee crisis in Europe, and that capitalism is at the root of most of the world’s problems.

    • Speaking as a person at the bottom of society here in the UK, I too am aware that my country is being simultaneously gifted to the rich, and invaded by a foreign population and religion. On top of these burdens, I find every day that increasing regulation and bureaucracy are further limiting the range of available legal activities that might aid me in escaping from poverty. At least it is still legal for me to (for example) repair my own car or fix a leak in my own roof, but who can say if such liberties will survive the next decade.
      As a poor person, I have access to “freeview” television, which with only minor exceptions is a churning mass of drivel. The four available so-called “news” channels are BBC, Sky, Al Jazeera and Russia Today.
      The last two of these are heavily engaged in psy. ops. i.e. the brainwashing of the target population in order to inspire social collapse and dependency on the fossil fuel exports of the lands in which these channels originate.
      Al Jazeera, “is a Doha-based state-funded broadcaster owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network, which is partly funded by the House of Thani, the ruling family of Qatar” source wikipedia.
      Russia Today “is a brand of “TV-Novosti”, an “autonomous non-profit organization”, founded by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti on April 6, 2005. During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian Government included ANO “TV-Novosti” in the list of core organisations of strategic importance of Russia”
      In that sense, at least, they represent a rational exercise on the part of the instigators of this exercise.
      Both channels heavily promote the views of “useful idiots” who wish to destroy UK energy independence and access to cheap energy.
      Both channels also promote tolerance of immigration and also promote the causes of immigration – i.e. popular revolt against standing governments.
      It is remarkable that we as a nation allow our enemies to employ subversive “active measures” by granting them direct access to the minds of the population.
      What is more remarkable – is that the purportedly “non-biased” (haha) BBC, takes a similar stand on most issues to Al Jazeera and RT. Especially with regard to the green issues and immigration.
      It is hardly surprising that our enemies would like to see us kick ourselves squarely in the nuts.
      But, far more fascination that the imbecilic urban elite and academia represented by the BBC have joined with our enemies and are aiding them in their mission to destroy our industrial capacity, financial power, security and happiness.
      There is a large wooden horse, that has now been carried in through the gates of the citadel.
      For some reason we are being told that we must be “tolerant” of the lovely new wooden horse.
      And yes, we all agree that horses are very nice, in general.
      But, I have a very nasty feeling about this particular wooden horse.

      • If oil prices stay down, Russia won’t have the money to maintain his occupation force for long.
        Plus this puts Russia in the bulls-eye as far as Isis is concerned.

  26. So we end up with the governors climate change for social justice being challenged by the legislatures social justice for the poor. Unfortunately like “climate change”, “social justice” is becoming a meaningless term.
    When a politician claims their motive is social justice, run away. Kind of like when a used car salesman prefaces a statement with “To tell you the truth”.
    The bottom line is representatives from poorer communities are properly protecting the interests of the people who elected them. The governor is following a fanatical eco ideology with an eye toward a sweet pay-off down the line from all in the CA solar industry that up to this point have been doing very well.

  27. Nothing like the spectre of a peasant’s revolt to change the direction of a liberal (and about the only thing). Liberals live by the tenets of two emotions: fear and avarice. When there is no fear the avarice is righteous and vicious, when there is fear, self preservation goes into overtime: gun control, nanny-statism, righteous indignation, oppression. It’s all a clearly definable sociopathy.

  28. I seem to remember that CA had a past governor with a very similar name, but he was a Jesuit-trained, pot-smoking rock star-boinker. This guy looks more like my accountant. No relation, I’m sure.

  29. Democrats do not care about anything anymore but getting re-elected. They have no real principles left and that allows them to blow in the wind. While it is good to see the wind beginning to change on this CAGW hoax/scam/nonsense, democrats will remain unprincipled democrats.

  30. These lines, near the end of the WSJ article, are interesting:
    After this week’s defeat, Mr. Brown vowed to use regulation to end-run the legislature. “We don’t have a declaration in statute, but we have absolutely the same authority,” he declared.
    . . .
    “We’re going forward. The only thing different is my zeal has been intensified to a maximum degree.”

  31. Taking his cue from Obama, he plans to do an end-run around the legislature via regulation. Good to see some Dems are starting to wake up to the damaging effects of “green” energy policies, although they have a long way to go. Ultimately, anti-carbon so-called “green” energy policies are economy-killing and anti-democratic. They make us less able to deal with real issues, such as actual pollution, and poverty, and actually exacerbating them. It will also increase cognitive dissonance, since they will still be left with the knee-jerk, un-thinking belief that we have to “do something” about climate before it’s “too late”.

  32. Time to throw out the alarmist’s green agenda and look at a different agenda
    So what should we really do to prepare for the future climate?
    • FIGHT POLLUTION AND NOT CLIMATE CHANGE. CUTTING CO2 LEVELS WILL HAVE VERY NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE
    • LEARN TO PREPARE AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. MOST CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND IS NATURAL ANYWAY
    • RECOGNIZE THAT POPULATION GROWTH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED INDEFINITELY OR THE GLOBAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS LIKE O2 SUPPLY, CLEAN WATER, FOOD SUPPLY MAY FAIL FOR ALL
    • RECOGNIZE THAT CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT AND IS ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET
    • RECOGNIZE THAT THE REAL POLLUTANTS ARE OTHER EMISSION’S COMPONENTS LIKE VOC, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDE, PARTICULATE MATTER, ETC., ( NOT CO2)
    • DRASTICALLY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE SUBSIDIES AND TAX BENEFITS TO UNSUSTAINABLE ENERGIES.USE THE FUNDS TO HELP THE NEEDY AND HOMELESS DUE TO NATURAL DISASTERS
    • ELIMINATE ALL FORMS OF CARBON TAX, CARBON PRICING , CAP AND TRADE TAXES
    • HELP POOR COUNTRIES AND STATES TO INSTALL LESS EXPENSIVE FOSSIL ENERGIES WITH LESS RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS
    • HELP THE POOR OF ANY NATION TO COPE WITH HIGH ENERGY COSTS AND REDUCE ENERGY POVERTY BY LOWERING PRICES , NOT INCREASING THEM
    • HAVE BETTER AND PROPER SAFETY MEASURES TO TRANSPORT ALL ENERGY INCLUDING FOSSIL FUELS
    • STOP PRODUCING ETHANOL AND FEED THE POOR INSTEAD WITH THE CORN
    • PUT AN ANNUAL PRICE AND TRACK ALL THE DOLLARS BEING SPENT TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE. WHAT GAIN ARE WE GETTING FOR THE COST?
    • STOP CONTINUALLY MANIPULATING RAW CLIMATE DATA
    • RECOGNIZE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS PERIODIC COOLING AS WELL
    • MANY NORTHERN REGIONS NEED TO PREPARE FOR THE COMING 30 YEAR COOLER PHASE OF THE CLIMATE CYCLE
    • RECOGNIZE THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DERIVED FIGURES WHICH MAY INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT REGIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY COOLING AT THE MOMENT (NORTH AMERICA)
    • PRESENT ALL CLIMATE RISKS NOT JUST THE WARMING SIDE
    • STOP SHUTTING DOWN GOOD WORKING FOSSIL POWER PLANTS PREMATURELY. THE PUBLIC PURSE CANNOT AFFORD THIS KIND OF WASTE.
    • PROMOTE THE RESTORATION OF GLOBAL FORESTS. LOSS OF TREES POSES A SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER THREAT THAN CURRENT INCREASES IN CO2 LEVELS
    • PUBLICIZE THE TRUE COST OF RENEWABLES. TRUE COST OF WIND ENERGY IS 1.7 TO 2.2 TIMES MORE THAN USED IN LEVELIZED COST STUDIES AND 3 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN FROM EXISTING COAL
    • STORING CARBON DIOXIDE IS A TOTAL WASTE OF EVERYONE’S MONEY AND SHOULD BE HALTED

    • You might rephrase the last point as Cardox International has made millions from beneficial uses of stored CO2 http://cardox.net/
      The dry ice industry is also healthy, with a current US price around 1.50/lb.

    • Maybe if you yell at everyone by using all caps, your message will be more palatable?
      Seriously…few things are more annoying dude. There is a reason why things are written using a standard form…it is easier on the eyes and hence easier to read.

    • To be clear…I agree with much of what you say, but could not stand to read it all because of your choice to hit cap lock.

      • Agreed. Emphasis works only by virtue of contrast. All caps is all emphasis, so it defeats its own purpose.
        Standard usage calls for either bold or italic for emphasis, but never all caps. Acronyms are capitalized. (I would have underlined ‘never all caps’, for yet another kind of emphasis, but only Ric Werme knows how to do that here, so you’ll have to use your imagination.)
        Paragraph breaks introduce needed w h i t e s p a c e by giving a break to the eyes, boosting contrast, and increasing legibility.
        To get bold and italics, you’ll have to master some simple HTML. You’ll also need to proof your work thoroughly, ‘lest you cause a – R u n a w a y B o l d E f f e c t – so be very careful.

    • Population growth isn’t a problem and won’t be until the population is at least 10 times what we have.
      With future technological improvements, this number could increase.
      Your worried about running out of O2 if there are too many people????????????

      • You know you are in a discussion with Brainiac 5 when he brings up oxygen depletion as a cause for concern.

  33. The Wall Street Journal is the propaganda arm for unbridled capitalism and Climate Change deniers. I hope that the populace will just say no when Wall Street asked to be bailed out again – this time when water floods Wall Street entirely.

    • jhindson2015,
      Are you trying to make a point? Or are you just venting?
      There is no such thing as unbridled capitalism here, and even if there were, it has nothing to do with “Climate Change deniers”, whatever that means.
      I doubt if you even understand what you’re trying to say.
      What is a climate change denier? Where do you get your fuzzy thinking from? You sound like a trained parrot.
      This is a science site, not one of the idiot magnet blogs you usually read. Do you really believe that Wall Street is going to be flooded because of man-made global warming? Do you have a single fact to support that ridiculous notion? If so, post it here. We can use the amusement.

    • Said the robot.
      Interesting use of terminology. Could just as easily rewritten: “The New York Times is the propaganda arm for unbridled Socialism and Climate Change. I hope that the populace will just say no when the NYT asks to be bailed out – this time when NYT’s revenues dry up entirely.”
      Socialists never seem to get that for there to be OPiuM* to get high on, some capitalist has to have generated some. Otherwise, you only get more by printing more. You can only steal what exists in the first place. The Greeks have an excellent post-graduate course in real-time on how this works.
      *(Other People’s invested, uncommitted Money)

    • Somebody doesn’t read the WSJ. The idea that they support unbridled capitalism is utterly laughable.
      Regardless, WSJ didn’t make this story up, they just reported it. Are you claiming that the WSJ somehow forced the Democrats to go against Gov Moonbeam? I wish they had that kind of power.
      As to your nonsense about Deniers and flood waters, you got nothing else right, why should I be surprised.

    • IMO unbridled capitalism (that is truly a free market) is something we should try. I don’t think it has existed for 500 years or more.
      There seems a belief in some quarters that government manipulation of the markets is somehow more benevolent than letting business sort it out for themselves. At least they have some interest in keeping the customers happy and coming back to them. The state has no such interest.
      And that includes not pumping public money into failing enterprises.

  34. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Executive Summary: All I can say is its about time. The evidence that green energy is hideously expensive and hurts poor people is irrefutable. Claims of alleged benefits are all based on broken climate models, which have no demonstrable predictive skill.

    • I think the climate models do have a demonstrable predictive value…everything they predict is guaranteed not to happen. At least based on past performance.
      They are the perfect reverse barometer of what is to come.

  35. On the topic of California, any way we could get the contents of the USB drive dumped on a WUWT page and allow the community too dig into the data?

  36. Saying green energy disproportionately hurts poor people is pure BS. First of all, green energy would create jobs for lots of trades, and second it would make the energy supply industry much more decentralized (which is exactly what the giant petro CEOs fear, as it would cut into their excessive profit margins, shareholder dividends, fat paychecks, and enormous bonuses).
    http://www.ibtimes.com/fossil-fuel-execs-have-little-financial-incentive-fight-climate-change-report-says-2079765
    And even if energy prices rise significantly, policies can be put in place so that they do not disproportionately affect the poor (e.g. increasing block pricing, green energy dividends”). California just doesn’t have the political will right now because so many elected officials are bought and paid by Big Industry.

    • Barry, who do you suppose is standing to gain the most from the ginormous subsidies the government is larding out for the so-called “green” energy schemes?
      Hint: It is not the people struggling to pay their utility bills, or scrounging under couch cushions for gas money.

    • Barry,I doubt that you would admit that the article you present has more than a bit of a progressive slant to it. Perhaps you should move to Venezuela for a couple of years so you can get a first hand look at how the revolution is going.

      • Moving to one of their utopias would require work. It’s so much easier to demand that someone else create their own little utopia here.

    • The naivete of this kind of thinkfail is what is so demoralizing. You frankly have no clue – none – what it takes to deliver ANY kind of energy to modern society, or how energy is delivered, even today. Decentralized? Jobs for lots of trades? Even IF energy prices rise significantly? HAH! It’s centralization that provides efficiency of generation and stability of supply. The trades are already at demand capacity – there are no new trades in the “green revolution”, because there really is no new applied technology – just different feed sources.
      The only demand for more trades can come from increased population and more industry. Energy prices have already risen significantly – (come to Canada sometime in the winter – find out how much energy you really need to survive a typical winter). Last year’s electricity costs for me were twice what I’ve paid in the recent past. In August, I’m still trying to get to economic parity on my energy costs from last year, let alone set up for this winter. All, BTW due to the applied “policy” cost of decentralization due to subsidized installation of so-called “green energy”. Jobs? Thousands of acres have been taken out of production for the installation of green cash sinks like windmill farms and solar arrays. At best, the job base of that land (compared to agriculture, because there is no industrial capacity to greenified land) is neutral, at worst, its below the agricultural need.
      At the current price of oil, my energy costs would be a 1/3 of previous decades. Instead, I’m looking at energy costs this winter 3x what I paid as little as 3 years ago, with projections to go higher, by “policy” mandate. I have no idea where the money is going to come from to pay it. Your policy mavens continue to extract more of what I make with NO ROE, and those increasing costs have driven additional income opportunities out of my world. I wouldn’t mind trying to capitalize a few ideas I have and see what comes of it, but I can’t, because capitalism is evil.. Odd though that those policy mavens say no when I ask them for the money, or to forget about collecting on my hydro bill. Odd too, that in spite of all of those bonuses, dividends, and perks to fat cats and (good God, shareholders!) my energy costs only went up when the green fantasy started. Maybe, just maybe, its due to the outrageous subsidized, contracted costs with no guaranteed ROE that pushed those costs up. The ironic part? Those costs have succeeded in driving out those fat cats and their industry, so energy demand is down some. That’s great news – leaves only the unemployed now to have to pay for those green fantasies, but apparently, that’s all BS. So is the “green job” nirvana those unemployed keep being told they’ll be able to bank on.
      Somebody ELSE always has to pay for your reversion to subsistence living. Problem is – most developed regions, especially more northern ones, no longer have the local carrying capacity to support high density populations on decentralized, erratic energy feeds.

      • Paul Coppin –
        Well said. This week I am splitting another couple of cords of wood in order to keep my 52-40 degrees north heating bill in check. I get several rounds of heat out of each piece of wood – 1 Cutting down the trees, 2 Bucking, 3 Splitting, 4 Stacking, 5 Hauling in to the wood box in the house, 6 Burning, 7 Carrying out the ashes. That plus a sweater and comforter keeps the energy bills in check – a little. Plus I keep the upstairs thermostats at 18 C and the downstairs walkout at 14 C unless I have company. Now, a good fire heats the upstairs to the mid 20’s and only drops to the thermostat settings if I am away.

    • I love the way idiots actually believe that when you steal money from one group of people and give it to someone else, you can create jobs.
      As to your belief that decentralization is good for people, why do you morons always insist on centralizing power in Washington?

    • Barry, get a clue. “Bought and paid for” applies much more to California politicians owned by the enviro-lobby that it does to “Big Industry”.
      And it doesn’t bother you even a little bit being so hypocritical, criticizing the system that provides just about everything you have?
      Finally, you obviously know nothing of economics if you believe that ‘green’ energy is a net creator of jobs. Learn about Bastiat’s ‘Broken Window’ fallacy. You will be smarter for it.

    • Barry, please submit an article to WUWT. One of the reasons WUWT is popular, is we welcome input from people who disagree with us. Read the articles here and you will see plenty of material, from people with very different views.
      The key to being accepted is to provide evidence to back your position – so for example, if you wanted to convince us that green energy helps poor people, we would expect you to provide facts, figures and calculations, to back your argument.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-a-story/

    • Have you noticed all the billionaires and multi-millionaires who made their money “shuffling paper”/Wall Street that are backing climate change and renewable energy?
      Money made by not producing/making anything.

    • Pushing up prices for essentials (and the price of electricity feeds into just about everything we manufacture) does not hurt the poor first? Sorry Barry, not sure where you learned your economics, but it doesn’t work.
      Question: Creating jobs to make expensive energy that would be unsellable in an unrestricted market…who pays the wage bill?
      Clue: It is not the people selling the energy.
      Question: How do renewables decentralise energy exactly?
      Clue: They are reliant on a reliable grid to backfill when they can’t meet demand.
      Supplementary Question: In the UK renewables often fall below 1% of demand. What do you think the ‘green’ electricity companies sell?
      Clue: Their customers are on the grid. They are buying the same electricity as everyone else. They are just foolish enough to create some millionaires by paying over the top for their power and who could live quite nicely by competing on price and subsidy farming.
      Question: Renewable firms Big Industry or mom and pop companies who only have the customers interest at heart?
      Clue: Try building a 2 acre solar array or a 300ft wind turbine from scratch in your garage.
      Question: The government money that is propping up a failed enterprise…where does that come from?
      Clue: They don’t have a magic money tree or unicorn that poos gold. It comes straight of the wage packets of the people who are out there 8 hours a day trying to earn a crust.
      Renewables are a failed experiment that delayed the adoption of MSR and CANDU by 30 years.
      Now disconnect from the grid and install your solar and windmill if you truly believe it is workable, it should be the most amenable generation method to scaling down. You can sit in the dark and wait for the sun to shine or the wind to blow. I don’t intend to.

    • “And even if energy prices rise significantly, policies can be put in place so that they do not disproportionately affect the poor (e.g. increasing block pricing, green energy dividends”).”
      But, if the poor are going to be made whole, what incentive would there be for them to cut their energy use? There would need to be a smart meter on every apartment in every apartment building, and on every car.

  37. Jerry Brown intends to go around everyone to impose his will and thanks to the regulatory state he could even do it. This reminds me of what James Madison said:
    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

  38. In Alberta we have a similar problem to California, but our problem is not resolved. It appears probable that our energy systems will be californicated by costly, inefficient green energy foolishness.
    Our new left-wing Alberta government drank the Kyoto Kool-Aid and wants to aggressively “fight global warming”, which (ironically) has not happened for more than 18 years, despite increasing atmospheric CO2.
    This six-minute video is worth watching.

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Harvard), Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton) and I co-authored the anti-Kyoto position in the 2002 APEGA debate referred to in the video.
    A Summary of my presentation to the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel is included below. The two papers will be cited when posted on the net.
    Regards, Allan
    SUBMISSION TO ALBERTA’S CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISORY PANEL (ACCAP)
    I request that you post this email AND the two attached papers, written for submission to ACCAP:
    1. The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming September 6, 2015
    by Allan MacRae
    2. Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
    by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
    SUMMARY:
    The members of the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel may find these two papers controversial and want to dismiss them.
    The mandate of the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel relies primarily on the scientific position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, the IPCC’s position is being disproved by two decades of credible climate data. NONE of the IPCC’s dire climate change predictions have materialized.
    One’s predictive track record is an objective measure of one’s technical competence, and based on its negative predictive track record, the IPCC has NO credibility.
    In contrast, the predictive track records of Joseph D’Aleo, a veteran Meteorologist and Allan MacRae, a Professional Engineer, are highly credible. A debate with the Pembina Institute published in 2002 co-authored by Mr. MacRae provides evidence of his predictive competence. Mr. D’Aleo and his colleagues have demonstrated remarkable accuracy in their meteorological forecasts.
    Since its first report (FAR, 1990) the IPCC has predicted catastrophic global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2. However, global temperatures in the Lower Troposphere (LT) have NOT warmed in more than 18 years despite significant increases in CO2, according to the most accurate temperature data measured by satellites. The Surface Temperature (ST) data claims some warming, but it is increasingly obvious that the ST data is inaccurate, due to its increasingly large divergence from the satellite data.
    Despite claims of more extreme weather due to global warming, the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. The climate has been remarkably stable despite substantial increases in atmospheric CO2.
    Over-hyped fears of global warming are utterly wrong. In fact, cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates. Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
    Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national Excess Winter Mortality statistics.
    Excess Winter Mortality in the USA typically totals about 100,000 per year – that is, 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year during the cold months of December through March. In Canada, Excess Winter Deaths range from about 5000 to 10,000 every year.
    Despite our colder climate, Canada typically has slightly lower Excess Winter Mortality Rates than the USA and much lower than the UK. This is attributed to our better adaptation to cold weather, including better home insulation and home heating systems, and much lower energy costs than the UK, as a result of low-cost natural gas due to shale fracking and our lower implementation of inefficient and costly green energy schemes.
    The Alberta Climate Change initiative seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of green energy. In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths. European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels.
    The problem with green energy schemes is they are not green and they produce little useful energy, primarily because they are too intermittent and require almost 100% fossil-fueled (or other) backup.
    The lessons for Alberta are clear: When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, the costs are enormous – globally, trillions of dollars of scarce resources have been squandered, economies have been severely damaged, and innocent people have needlessly suffered and died.
    Yours truly, Allan MacRae

    • Well done! I attended the meeting in Edmonton and had quite a long chat with one of the representatives. In my discussion with her, I commented on the fact that the NDP seemed to change their mind about CCS from before the election to afterwards. In the comments that I submitted, I also mentioned that Alberta’s plan to still spend (due to previous commitments) about 1.24 billion dollars on CCS and the gain from this would be a forestalling of about 1/10000 degree C over the next 100 years.

      • Hi Werner.
        In about 2008 Syncrude studied the cost of CO2 capture from their huge hydrogen plants, which produce hydrogen and CO2 by-product through steam-methane reforming of natural gas.
        As I recall, the cost to simply capture this relatively pure CO2 by-product stream and pipe it just one mile to the plant boundary was about $150 per tonne CO2, including capital amortization and operating cost.
        Then there would be the added costs of piping the CO2 to distant oilfields and injecting it into producing formations to increase oil recovery.
        The economics of this scheme sound rather dismal, although CO2 injection has been used for many years at Weyburn-Midale, Saskatchewan.

    • Many people moved to Alberta for work and they brought their politics with them. Didn’t learn from having lost their jobs in other provinces.

    • Thanks Allan.
      I have sent comments to the CCP (Climate Change Panel) and to the Premier.
      I note we have seen the first protests against the new Alberta NDP govenment this weekend for putting their Climate Change Agenda ahead of jobs and the economy. Hopefully they will listen. I actually think they are pandering to the US and our other provinces in order to get pipelines approved, but I may be reading too much into comments made by the Premier and her Ministers that don’t get to the media.
      In my note to the Premier, acknowledged by an underling, I sent the results of the UN and Gallup polls showing how the public puts Climate Change at the bottom of their list of concerns.
      Only politicians, bureaucrats, and university ivory tower gazers along with a few blinded ecoloons believe in CAGW. The politicians like it as a diversion to allow them to carry out activities under the radar while rewarding their friends. Bureaucrats like it because they get nice rewards. The ivory tower group likes it for the same reason and the ecoloons like it because they get the attention they undoubtedly missed when they were children. (I can’t say environmentalists because they aren’t, I think I am because I have worked and played with knowledge in the enviromental/climate area all my life.) There are still lots of good environmental groups and ecologists out there, but sadly, they don’t attract much attention.
      Although we see no warming in the satellite record in the last 18 years, personally, living in the country and burning wood off my property as my main winter heat source, I wouldn’t mind a degree or two of warming.
      However I have looked at a lot of temperature records north of 49 and the most common thing I see is LESS cold, not warming. Frankly, living in a place that gets down to 30 below regularly, a degree or two of less cold really doesn’t seem like a problem to me.
      Glad I had a chance to talk to you about the CPP meetings and thanks to all who attended and who have commented.
      Any Albertans reading this might want to go to:
      https://climateleadershipsurvey.alberta.ca/
      Now there are issues with the “survey” as it appears designed to get predetermined results … but there are comment sections that allow responders to provide “real” input. Take the opportunity.
      Wayne Delbeke,

    • Thank you Werner, Barbara and Wayne for your comments.
      My submission to the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel was made six days ago on Tuesday 8Sept2015 but is still not posted on their website – I will advise when it is posted. The Panel have now posted submissions up to 31Aug2015 at
      https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1whOKweyfKHfndDdUpxYXlQdUF0MGhSM25jR3RuLXppLU01NXlMcDFqR2pJZHpkSmo2T2M&usp=drive_web
      Regards, Allan
      Post Script:
      An earlier version of our Excess Winter Mortality Paper is here:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
      [excerpt]
      “USA: In 2008, there were 108,500 ‘excess’ deaths during the 122 days in the cold months (December to March).”
      To put that number of USA Excess Winter Deaths into perspective, it is two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks EVERY YEAR.
      And the President and the media tell us to be very frightened because we’ll all burn up from global warming… … I am not at all concerned abut global warming, but I am concerned about global cooling, whether moderate or severe, and I suggest cooling is imminent.

  39. “Anyone who supports absurd green energy policies is the enemy of the world’s poor people.” It would be nice if Pope Francis would learn and admit this…

  40. The argument was made earlier in this thread that: “saying green energy disproportionately hurts poor people is pure BS. First of all, green energy would create jobs for lots of trades, and second it would make the energy supply industry much more decentralized”.
    By a similar argument, I would like to propose that we lobby for our political masters to mandate that henceforth all construction work is conducted using “no tool larger than a tablespoon”.
    The justification for this scheme of mine, would be phrased in a similar manner to those given by the commentator above who expects such miraculous benefits to accrue from preferentially favouring small-scale, piecemeal, unreliable and inordinately expensive energy production.
    It is true that my tablespoon scheme will vastly increase the number of people employed in construction work. It will also “empower” people who are currently denied access to construction work that is granted only to those providers who have access to industrial scale equipment.
    Also mandating that all buildings should be constructed only using “straw and mud” would add to the effectiveness of this scheme.
    Since building would then be limited to two or three floors and a basement, this policy would create a de-centralization of urban working and living areas.
    We could pay for this scheme of mine by charging additional fees to property buyers and renters in the form of a tax.
    We could make this tax sound attractive and generous by calling it a “subsidy”.
    This money could then be decanted into the pockets of those early adopters who – believing correctly that the “tablespoon” and “straw and mud” economy offered a remarkable investment opportunity – had stepped in and carved up the market for this “disruptive technology”.
    Of course, the same people will have access to politicians and will doubtless lobby for strict controls on who can or can not become involved in the practice of spoon, straw and mud construction projects.
    A certification scheme for professional “experts” would need to be introduced, and “ordinary” people should be banned from access to the subsidies if they attempt to carry out this work for themselves.
    All of this should be an easy sell for left-leaning politicians.
    If the scheme is rolled out before 2017 in the U.S. then perhaps we could call it Obamabuild.
    I look forward to seeing my ideas adopted.
    (P.S. for the benefit of real card carrying leftist idiots – this is a thing called a parody).

    • indefatigablefrog
      September 13, 2015 at 1:23 pm
      Actually you accurately described construction I have seen in many third world countries.
      In Ethiopia, some of the projects we worked on specifically prohibited the use of large mechanical equipment. Excavations were done by hand both for large water and sewer mains and the plant works. I have photos of remarkable works constructed of planks and struts with men digging in the bottom of pits loading platforms of boards and long branches that were then carried by women, two on each end of the branches, with crossed branches and boards supporting the dirt, up out of the excavation on spindly, shaky scaffolding to the spoil pile. Water and sewerage work that would have taken perhaps 3 to 6 months in North America took 3 to 4 years to complete. The goal was to provide employment to locals, not to line the pockets of equipment suppliers. It was hard to watch from a North American engineering stand point, and getting waterproof concrete was a chore, but it was a great learning experience in patience and understanding that western goals and ideals must be adjusted to local customs and goals. The jobs got done …. on Ethiopian Time. Not a whole lot different than some places I have worked in rural Canada actually. Used to call it “Northern Time”.
      Everyone marches to a different drum I reckon.

  41. Paul Coppin
    September 13, 2015 at 9:22 am
    […]” Could just as easily rewritten: “The New York Times is the propaganda arm for unbridled Socialism and Climate Change.”
    The New York Times seems to be the propaganda arm for many interests. Consider that there’s never been a war that the NYT didn’t like. Does the name Judith Miller ring a bell?
    In addition to all its other malefactions, the entire CAGW kerfuffle has the further distinction of distracting public attention from the more militant manefestations of other federal departments, incuding that one misnamed Defense. The anti-war movement in the US is virtually moribund, but I guess that’s OK, what with war being good for business, and all.
    ‘Good thing there are other whipping boys, and easy dogs to kick like Brown and the EPA around, to keep everyone busy composing quips, and aiming kicks.
    Whatever else one may say about Gov. Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown, he has managed to put some dents in Golden State debt. Who has paid for that result is not clear to me, nor am I certain that the accounting is accurate. I can’t find a good number for Cal’s current debt, but I do note – accurately I hope – that Brown’s predecessor, the muscle-bound celebrity Arnold Schwarzenegger, ran it up from $34 billion to $91 billion during his terms of office, but he did look heroic and awesome, while promising to shred the credit cards.
    Before Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis was saddled with loopholes for criminals gaming the energy system, which were set up by energy deregulation in California under Gov. Pete Wilson in 1996. So. Cal. Edison and PG&E were forced to sell their power plants to private companies, and to buy power on the “open market,” which would be rigged.
    VP Dick Cheney blocked probes into probable criminal activity surrounding manipulation of energy prices in California during Gray’s tenure by Williams, Reliant, Dynergy, Enron, and probably others. See Jason Leopold’s article at Truthout: Cheney Suppressed Evidence in California Energy Crisis.
    Now back to bashing Moonbeam, who really does seem way too smart to have fallen for all the hysteria and alarm of The Great CAGW Panic, and who must be able to see that rising prices brought about by underproducing, inefficient, counterproductive wind turbines and solar arrays will hurt most those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder of success. The rich can afford to pay for idiotic ideas, the poor and middle classes cannot. Brown’s motives are murky, but not capital murky. ‘For that, we have to look elsewhere.
    I guess it’s probably time for another smooth-talking movie star to step up, and lead the state back to Hollywood.

    • A kerfuffle is a commotion, or a fuss.
      To refer to CAGW thusly is to downplay the entire thing to a triviality.
      It is hardly that.
      It is a threat to modern civilization, nothing less.
      And if the world is due for a substantial cooling, rather than a continuation of the pause or a resumption of warming, it may be that CAGW and the misdirection of resources and misallocation of attention that is has engendered may contribute and lead to the largest loss of life in human history.
      Kerfuffle?
      Right. And WWII was a bit of a row.

    • the NYT is pro-war?
      I’m guessing you are one of those geniuses who thinks that war never solved anything and the world would be a better place if the US would just disband it’s military.
      Idiots like this guy are incapable of learning.
      Wow, is there any lame brained conspiracy theory that he doesn’t believe in?

  42. Sigh… Where is the American politician with the cahones to make their legacy gun control instead? That will save far more lives in the long run than any measures for climate change…

    • I think that is the political “third rail”. There is that bit in the US Constitution, you know. Bill Clinton thought he had ‘um. Zap! Don’t go there. Climate isn’t there yet but when people can’t afford to drive, or heat, or pay for anything else because of artificial costs benefiting a select few, the resistance will be felt.

    • I suggest that instead of shilling for Criminals and Totalitarians via gun “control”, a process from which historically springs quite a lot of death, gun controllists should instead turn their attention to “control” of automobiles for a much greater saving of lives over gun “control” as well as “right to keep and bear arms” arrangements, i.e., no auto for thee but at least one for me.

    • Sorry dude, it has been proven that gun control kills by the millions.
      You don’t make the criminal safe by making the law abiding helpless.
      BTW, climate control measures have killed thousands, and if fully implemented will kill millions more.

  43. Thank you Mike, Steve P and rogerknights for your thoughtful comments, in the case of Mike I would thank him for his very long reply. My reply to Steve P, who says my thinking is flawed. Of coarse it is, that’s the point that I’m trying to make. There’s not a person in the universe that can say their thinking is without error. This particular blog among many others, is an example of believing that you all know the right way. Doesn’t that make you smile? Mike, you call me names, to what purpose? Why don’t you address the problem of your anger and then maybe we could have a sane conversation. Rogerknights, I think you get the idea. Because we have two different ideas about what’s going on doesn’t mean that the ideas can’t be discussed. When one looks at the total picture, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t such a bad idea for health reasons and to stop the acidification of the oceans. And maybe as you say there is some kind of nuclear reactor that will be safe. That’s also a way to save the planet’s ecology.
    Again thanks for the comments. We’ll be in touch.

    • CO2 added by humans currently feeds close to one billion people with no additional land or water required. CO2 is good.

    • “bobthebear September 13, 2015 at 10:16 pm”
      bob, Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change has a prediction failure record =100%, which means it is Scientifically Falsified. It’s as simple as that. “Mainstream” Climate Scientists should have changed their hypotheses to try to reflect empirical reality, but instead they stick to their “science”, in effect as [profitable] Dogma. As to your idea that Atmospheric CO2=400 ppm ->10,000+++ppm is a “toxin” and thus dangerous to your health, your own body carries a normal CO2 concentration of ~56,000 ppm. You exhale air at ~40,000 ppm.CO2.

  44. BTW, the three of you claim to “know” things about the future. Nobody “knows” anything about tomorrow. I personally am only talking probabilities. What are the chances that Mars will settled by human in 2065? I don’t “know”, but the probability is probably one in twelve, and my calculation could be of by factor of 10.

    • bobthebear – remember all those dinosaurs 73 million years ago that died in a mud flow around Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada? What do you suppose the CO2 level was then? Will it be warmer with more CO2? Probably. Will it matter? Probably not. Adapt or die like our ancestors. And the dinosaurs – perhaps from lack of CO2 that gave them the plant life needed to sustain them.
      Maybe we should be increasing CO2 for health reasons.
      http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-quarks-for-sep-12-2015-1.3224539/homo-naledi-new-species-of-human-relative-1.3224551
      http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/carbon_over_time.jpg
      Isn’t science great?

    • The odds of Mars being settled in 50 years?
      In the past 35 years we could barely get a shuttle off of the ground to go into a low orbit for a week or two!
      And now we do not even have that ability.
      Your estimate of the odds are off by a factor of infinity, because there is exactly zero chance of a Mars colony in that timeframe.
      You really must be a koolaid drinker pal.
      I will bet anyone that a mission to Mars will be the most expensive and highly publicized suicide in history.
      Short if some incredible breakthrough on propulsion technology.
      Space elevator? Can anyone spell ISIS?
      We cannot stop these msniacs from destroying civilization in their neck of the woods, and our leaders are dismantling and regulating industry and energy infrastructure out of existence so fast everyone sane should have their head spinning.
      Even in low Earth orbit, astronauts are practically crippled by a single year in space. Mars will take longer than that. And guess what chance a person has of surviving such a trip once outside of the Earth’s protective magnetic field?
      No one was more excited about space travel in their youth than me, and more disappointed to learn some hard facts.
      You should try it BTB

      • What goes on here? One after another comes up with the phrase ‘zero chance’ of something happening. In the early 60’s President Kennedy gave us a decade to get a man on the moon. The general feeling was that it was impossible and that we had a crazy president. Need I go any further? Get excited again, man is probably going to Mars.

    • If I let go of a ball, it will drop.
      The future is knowable, in some circumstances.
      The science has shown that there is absolutely zero chance of catastrophic warming due to CO2.
      No matter how much you might wish it to be otherwise.

      • MarkW, When you say something like “science has shown that there is absolutely zero chance” of something happening, you lose credibility with me. That may not be of importance, but try the same phrase on other people and see what their reaction is. Try it with your old physics teacher. BTW, I don’t wish it to be any particular way. However if I were making a wish, I would wish that you were right. With all my heart I would wish that you and the crew on board this blog were right.

      • A measured foot is always 12 inches. This is always true, no matter where you are. If you let go of a ball, it will drop. This statement depends on where you are. If on the Space Station, it will float. ;-])

  45. Dragged kicking and screaming to the facts. For shame. Anyone would think this is the 15th century and pig-ignorance is in high-fashion once more.
    Meanwhile, at the [dis]United Nations, the a fanatical Pope of Immaculate climate [mis]conception puts the other foot even deeper its mouth in an attempt to force a redistribution of global Yin-Yang symmetry.
    Hey, don’t mock, we’re supposed to be brainless martyrs to the imaginary!

  46. Either that or Jerry was playing both sides of the issue while making sure it would not pass in private discussions.

  47. Also, was Jerry the point-man Jesuit who instructed/negotiated with the Pope on what to do and say on climate fraud and science fail? Was this the outcome in the talks over trip and security costs for the Pope’s U.S. visit? A few key statements could be worth millions of dollars.

    • Everything that happens in congress these days hurts the poor. Why pick on environmentalist? Some things are less egregious than others. Helping with food, water and shelter are for the good. the rest is up for discussion.

  48. Why stop at 80% below 1990 levels? If huge reductions are so good just eliminate C02 emissions altogether. Oh wait, allowing the 20% will let them keep smoking whatever it is they were smoking when they came up with this plan. Ahhhh, smaaaaart.

  49. People have to understand that when the left wing decries the plight of poor people, they are not talking about first world poor people, they are talking about the third world. First world poor are just not poor enough I guess.

    • People have to understand when the left wing decries the plight of poor people, they are not talking about anyone they know.

Comments are closed.