California’s unemployment rate, which has risen to 6.2%, is now the third highest in the nation (following only behind Michigan and Alaska).
This should start some alarm bells ringing in the California State Capitol.
Every legislator, before they vote for any legislation in committee, or on the floor, should be applying a simple litmus test – is this legislation going to create jobs? Will this bill improve our business and job creation climate so that new jobs are created for our unemployed? Will this bill help a small business who is close to closing its doors? If the answers are yes, then the vote should be yes. On the other hand, there are some other questions that can be asked… Would this bill create new regulations or burdens on employers, increasing the likelihood of layoffs or business relocations or closures? Would this bill increase the cost of doing business in California? If the answers to these latter questions is yes, well… It’s time to vote no!
The liberals who dominate the state legislature, and our Governor, need to understand that if people are unemployed, it’s just bad on every level. Not only are these folks not taking care of themselves, and likely headed for government support, but they are also not paying taxes and contributing to the state’s income.
**There is more – click the link**
April 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I don’t know if we can stop Sacto’s green juggernaut, but opinion pieces like this focus rational people on the problem (but precious few Dems, I’m sure). Let’s add to the job-killer list Steinburg’s SB 375, with its championing of growth-management and heavy regulation long-sought by many of the State’s major environmental groups. SB 375 would impede future new suburban residential, commercial and retail development, and the jobs that go with it.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
There you go, Jon, right off the rails again. Haven’t you seen the television commercial by Newt Gingrich where he says we all must start now to do whatever we can to stop global warming? Your constriction company owning friend must start now to do what he needs to stop global warming. Indeed, the legislature must also act now on your jobs plan. For example, if the legislature passes and the Governor signs a gay marriage bill, think of all the jobs that will foster – marriage consultants will see their business go through the roof; flower shops and Churches too. And honeymoon hotels. Think about it Jon.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Nice piece Jon. One of the “relocations” that will be happening as result of alarmism about global warming, is that “Fisherman’s Wharf Sourdough” will have to be made out of state, what with the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions in the Bay Area (can’t make sourdough, or any bread for that matter, without emitting CO2. After bread comes the famous California wine industry. Seriously, several hundred billions of dollar hit to the economy of California due to AB32.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
A note on Global Cooling and the CO2 hoax
There has been no global warming since 1998 – the earth has been cooling for at least the past ten years since the super El Nino of 1998. (BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm). (Maybe even longer – Note 1 below).
The data clearly do not support the CO2 hoax, and they clearly do support the natural acyclic solar effect on global temperatures.
1) The paper by Arthur H. and Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Loon, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf.
This paper examines all aspects of the carbon dioxide issue.
The authors have gathered data on CO2 buildup over the last few centuries and found that the buildup in anthropogenic CO2 was minor prior to 1950, but after that the CO2 buildup from all anthropogenic sources (coal, oil, and gas) increased by 330 percent up to 1972.
If the CO2-global warming hypotheses were true, one would expect the temperature trend over this same period would be increasing in step with the man-made CO2. However, not only was there no increase in temperatures, there was a decreasing trend over these same years in three measures of global temperature: 1) Arctic temperatures; 2) Northern Hemisphere temperature, and 3) Global temperature.
The results are plotted on a time chart in figure 13. Observe carefully the downtrend in these three temperature measures over this period.
There are similar graphs plotting this increase in man-made CO2 over this period and with no corresponding reaction in sea surface level rise rate (Figure 11) , or rate of glacier shortening (Figure 2). If man-made CO2 were causing a temperature rise, these rates (i.e. slopes of the line) of (rise and melting respectively) should have increased over that time period; however, the rates (or slopes) remained the same as since 1840, which is about the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of the present natural warming cycle.
If not man-made CO2 is causing the warming, what is? Figure 3 on shows an almost perfect correspondence between solar activity and Arctic Air Temperature from 1880 to 2000. This same relationship is shown in Figure 5 for U.S. surface temperature.
Super-sunspot activity has long been associated with warm cycles and lack thereof with cold cycles. The last warming period was 900-1350 AD, before the telescope, and the last cold period was the Little Ice Age (LIA), 1400-1840 +/-, with a nadir in the years of the Maunder minimum of sun spots, 1650-1720 AD. The telescope discovery in 1610 permitted direct observation of sunspots over most of the LIA>
This paper is a comprehensive analysis of Carbon Dioxide and related issues, and everyone should read it.
2) The article “World’s Top Scientists ‘Manmade Warming’ is a Dangerous Lie”, which includes a signed copy of the December 15, 2007 letter from 101 of the world’s top climatic scientists to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. “World’s Top Scientists ‘Manmade Warming’ is a Dangerous Lie”
http://www.rense.com/general79/d3m.htm,
In this letter these scientists pointedly criticize the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as flawed science presenting dangerous alternatives for world action.
Note that these scientists are located at U.S. and foreign universities, and foreign government research laboratories all over the world. However, not a single US government scientist signed. Basically their US government paycheck apparently governs their application of scientific ethics, and they all go along with the global warming-CO2 charade to assure continued government funding for their research.
Besides the ethical problem supporting the CO2 theory on the scientific side, one needs to look at the political motives of those non-scientists who are pushing for CO2 controls. The Marxist-trained liberals see the Global Warming-CO2 Control charade as their route to utopian management over the ignorant proletariat, in other words the Marxian liberal super-state.
Historian Robert Conquest, writing about Marxism in the 20th century (“Reflections on a Ravaged Century”) Part I – Mindslaughter, observed:
“Possession of, or by, the idea that one has final answers to all problems of history and of society seems to lead to “final answer” dogmas in other fields. There was and is a strong tendency among Marxists to accept pseudosciences. The mechanism seems to be related to the desire for complete solutions – which are, of course, more commonly found in the pseudosciences than in the sciences proper.”
Conquest’s observation applies directly to the carbon dioxide – global warming psuedoscience, and specifically to AB 32 “The Global Warming Solutions Act” and AB 1493, “The California Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bill”. These acts were written and voted in by Marxist-trained liberals (products of the California educational system since the 1960s), who are now in the legislature, who honestly believe in the infinite power of government to “fix” anything, even the atmosphere! In this regard Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney (writing in “Islam and Western Democracies”, http://www.Sydney.catholic.org.au ) commented:
“Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”
Considering these observations it seems highly questionable why California should be vigorously pursuing AB 32 and AB 1493, both of which attack CO2 emissions as the assumed cause of global warming, rather than a natural occurrence due to variation in solar/cosmic forces as shown beyond any doubt in paper No. 1 attached.
In summary I highly recommend that you redline any expenses by state agencies in pursuit of AB 32 or AB 1493. Particularly because:
1. The plan to drive California CO2 emissions to 1990 levels will have no effect on global temperatures. Zilch. Nada.
2. These bills will be economically devastating to California industry and
Agriculture and cause huge increases in cost of living and running thousands of small businesses in California. While they may not drive temperatures back to 1990 levels, they will most likely drive the economy and the population back to 1990 levels or even further as people move elsewhere to survive.
3. This anti-CO2 budget could be transferred to the educational budget, which is far more important for the future of California in the eyes of most Californians.
4. As noted above, the earth has been cooling for 10 years since at least 1998, or earlier. And we are supposedly fighting global warming??
In view of this information, as one Californian, I ask why are we as a state doing this? It seems that we are shooting ourselves in the foot with a cannon that will not damage the foot alone, but everything.
Sincerely,
Ron Kilmartin
Consulting Engineer
Water Resources, hydrology, & hydroclimatology
Note 1: In fact, the earth may have cooled even more since the effect of eliminating the abandoned Soviet Siberian meteorological sites ( several 1000s) from 1990 onward has not been statistically recognized in government averaging calculations for the 1990s, consequently resulting in a partly (or wholly) mathematical as opposed to a real jump in temperatures for that decade. See Horner, Christopher C., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Regnery, 2007, p 112, “Forgetting Siberia”.