Climate Change

Jerry Brown, Climate Change Prophet of Doom

Governor attacks critics, fears human 'extinction' at climate-change confab.

|

On governance and budget matters, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) has earned a reputation for being reasonable and moderate (by California standards). Even many Republicans describe him as the "last adult" in the Capitol, given his refusal to embrace far-reaching programs. Yet when it comes to global warming, the governor is anything but measured these days.

"God is not mocked…," Brown said (based on his published text), quoting St. Paul's letter to the Galatians, during his talk this week to a Vatican symposium on climate change. "And what St. Paul said in reference to God, we can also say about God's creation. We have heard what we're doing to that creation, what a trillion tons of CO2 and greenhouse gases will do. And that text that God is not mocked is not susceptible to compromises, to regrets. It's inexorable, it's absolutes."

He also stepped up the ad hominem on his climate-policy critics — accusing them of spending millions of dollars promoting propaganda and of "falsifying the scientific record" (even though some scientists who promote global warming also have been accused of manipulating data.)

Brown used words more reminiscent of Old Testament warnings than New Testament apologetics: The Earth may have already gone past the "tipping point" where the climate is changing too rapidly to reverse course. Humanity may face "extinction."

I'm not trying to argue over global warming in this column. Most climatologists believe global warming is real.  A minority makes persuasive alternative cases, but the political argument is over. Most Western politicians are committed to combating it. Polls show most Californians are supportive of Brown's policies provided they don't cost them too much. That's the political reality.

But Brown's rhetoric leaves little room for debate over specifics. And the devil always is in details. When one's opponents are tools of well-financed interests or mockers of the Almighty, it's hard to have rational debate. Same goes when humanity faces extinction. I rarely trust those of any political or religious stripe who speak in fundamentalist-type absolutes.

Even if man-made global warming is an absolute truth, does that mean that, say, the governor's plan to build a $68-billion-plus bullet train is a good idea for combating climate change? Credible research suggests high speed rail will not do much to reduce global-warming-causing pollutants.

An Assembly committee recently passed SB 350, which puts into place (by 2030) Brown's goal of reducing gasoline use in automobiles by 50 percent, increasing utilities' use of renewable energy by 50 percent and increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent. The California Air Resources Board would have power to make this happen. Is it beyond debate to wonder about government accountability as a bureaucracy gains vast new powers?

Economically prosperous societies can spend more money to fight long-term climate threats than poor ones. New technologies, which sprout up in booming economies, are cleaner than old ones. So if critics call for a look at economic costs and benefits of these policies, does that make them "troglodytes," the pejorative Brown has used?

If one notes the land-use policies he champions (forcing most new development onto tiny lots, setting aside most land as open space, etc.) increases the price of real estate and therefore exacerbates California's poverty problem while (arguably) doing nothing to combat warming, that doesn't make one a propagandist. It's just another reasonable point of view.

Even Pope Francis disagrees a bit with Brown's signature anti-global-warming policy — the cap-and-trade system that imposes a cap on manufacturers' emissions and forces them to buy credits. To the pope, that system isn't radical enough, because it "may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."

Such words reinforce a valid concern that a goal of many climate activists is to dramatically change our lifestyles. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction does not require changing people's lives," said Wendell Cox, an Illinois-based public-policy consultant who specializes in housing affordability and transportation.

That's the debate we ought to be having, but it's increasingly hard to do so in California when our usually balanced governor calls critics names and speaks in absolutes.

NEXT: University of New Hampshire No Longer Asking Students to Fix Problematic Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s $68b being spent on a train that won’t carbon neutral for much of the century, and the left has the gall to claim that there is only big money involved on one side of this issue.Tom Steyer isn’t making massive money off green energy. The majority of science funding isn’t coming from public grants that demand one sort of solution. Warren Buffet makes a massive profit of railway delivering oil while the politicians he buys off block the Keystone pipeline (which is its own form of cronyism, but besides the point).

    The left frames every issue in terms of class warfare, and the media barely holds them accountable for the cozy relationships they have with moneyed interests so there charade continues on.

    The writer of this article should have just written to his audience. Most of us here don’t buy into global warming, and even if we did wouldn’t buy into government bureaucrats and politicians being able to ‘fight’ it.

    1. He could have. But he writes for a bigger audience which is more gullible and less inquisitive, and starting with such basic low hanging fruit is a better way to wake them up than starting with radical nonsense, as most would see it.

    2. “…The left frames every issue in terms of class warfare…”
      No, they manage to throw in copious amounts of Gender and Race too.

  2. ‘…when our usually balanced governor…’

    There’s your problem —Brown is a jackass.

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Governor Jerry Brown said he is not sure legalizing pot is a good idea in his state because the country could lose its competitive edge if too many people are getting stoned.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/cal…..ot-because

    1. And how could you tell?

  3. Steven, you can complain all you want about Brown and his tone, but you should understand this: he is only echoing scientists. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world, said this:

    “We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.”

    That is science saying that, not a governor, and it is essentially what Brown is saying. And as time goes by, scientists are becoming more and more alarmed, not less.

    1. And here is really your problem, Steven. They said that a few years ago. Science has been sounding the alarm for decades. And we have only added more CO2 to the atmosphere. So you should understand that if you have a problem with the solutions being offered, that’s too bad. Deniers ceded the solution playing field to believers years ago. Your late to the discussion, by years. And there isn’t one single GOP candidate who really believes there is a problem to address, no less arrive at solutions.

    2. And I might add this, there is a new book out entitled “Climate Shock,” one of the authors being a Harvard economist, which looked at costs and probabilities of climate change. They make the following point about reaching 700 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the path we currently are on:

      “Wagner and Weitzman helpfully translate the scientific research on climate sensitivities into probabilities of very bad outcomes, and they conclude that at 700 ppm, there is an 11 percent chance of an increase in global temperature exceeding 11 degrees Fahrenheit.
      What would happen with that kind of temperature increase? No one knows exactly, but Wagner and Weitzman properly view the outcome as “near-certain disaster.” “‘Catastrophic’ no longer seems to do it justice,” they say.”

      http://www.insurancejournal.co…..375561.htm

      Governors, Popes, scientists, insurance companies, businesses…all are getting worried.

      1. So let me get this straight. These “experts” have been pronouncing imminent doom for decades … and it’s always right around the corner, yet hasn’t happened yet.

        Therefore we should believe them.

        Ever hear of the little boy who cried wolf?

        1. That 700 ppm of co2 would reach in 2100. Maybe sooner. But the harmful effects would occur in the preceding years.

          1. “That 700 ppm of co2 would reach in 2100. Maybe sooner. But the harmful effects would occur in the preceding years.”

            Maybe and perhaps and how about that fracking study, asshole?

          2. No it won’t.

      2. Repent ye climate sinners or thee shall be delivered unto a burning earth!

        1. Don’t repent. Just insist on a price on carbon, like anyone would want if it believes in a true marketplace.

          1. A massive government scheme is certainly going to solve this existential crisis.

            1. A price on carbon is a marketplace solution.

              1. Yes, a “marketplace” solution that will take money from businesses and direct it to the government to manage. The same government that can’t even keep millions of its employees personal data safe from hackers.

                1. So here is the thing, Sue, and it really is the point I try to keep making here. Getting a price on carbon (there is a cost and it’s not accounted for, which means the current marketplace is false), would be one way for the marketace to force proper solutions. The alternative is all the things you fear…intrusive big government forcing you to solve the problem.

                  Bailey has quoted libertarian Niskanin Center on this before so here is the conservative case for putting a price on carbon.
                  http://niskanencenter.org/blog…..arbon-tax/

                  Don’t want that solution? Fine. Dont complain about solutions that get implemented that are not from the marketplace.

                  1. “Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax (a much less costly means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) in return for elimination of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, abolition of green energy subsidies and regulatory mandates, and offsetting tax cuts to provide for revenue neutrality.”

                    Sure, those four trades for a price on carbon would ever, ever happen. Go ask Jerry how excited he would be to get rid of CARB.

                  2. “Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax (a much less costly means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) in return for elimination of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, abolition of green energy subsidies and regulatory mandates, and offsetting tax cuts to provide for revenue neutrality.”

                    Sure, those four trades for a price on carbon would ever, ever happen. Go ask Jerry how excited he would be to get rid of CARB.

                    1. Fair enough.

                    2. I am about to leave the house and go fill up my work truck with California blend gasoline that will cost me an extra 25 bucks today. How this special gas is going to possibly, in any conceivable way, going to make any measurable difference in air quality has never been explained. I live in your utopia. It is called San Francisco. It spends more money per capita than any city in the world. It can’t even manage to keep the streets clean.

                  3. (there is a cost and it’s not accounted for, which means the current marketplace is false),

                    Show me how I am being aggressed against by that carbon. Then we can talk about what a libertarian solution to this would be.

                    Good luck with that.

              2. Jackand Ace|7.31.15 @ 10:33AM|#
                “A price on carbon is a marketplace solution.”
                Pretty sure Jack’s stupid enough to believe this.
                Hey, Jack! When is the rapture?

          2. Maybe yes. Maybe no. California implemented a carbon carbon cap-and-trade system in 2006 (AB 32). In 2013 Jerry Brown borrowed $500 million from the fund to shore up the budget. $100 million has been paid back and the rest is promised to go to his hobby train set – the High Speed Rail.
            http://www.reuters.com/article…..JY20150317

          3. Why add a layer of complexity to a problem that does not exist.

            It is doubtful 5% of climate and weather is understood. Of that 5% there is conflicting evidence what is happening. Anyone who makes an absolute prediction on that sort of level of information is a fool.

            Business people know this isn’t possible. Weather is as complicated as the economy and anyone in business knows you can make a guess, you might be right, but all the possible information you can gather can point to the US$ going up, and two minutes later it starts going down. Weather is way, way too complicated. We’re not even close to understanding it. I live on a peninsula in Canada. There are at least 6 micro-climates within five miles of me. A neighbour grows bananas outside…in Canada!! No one understands even these micro-climates and why they exist. And, no one can predict with any accuracy the temps of even one of these micro climates, even projecting ahead a day.

            You’ve bought into an apocalyptic religion. Global warming is the religion for those who believe nothing.

      3. “What would happen with that kind of temperature increase?”

        I dunno, all the glaciers would melt, Greenland and Antarctica would unfreeze and we’d have more arable land to farm? Didn’t think of that shit did you?

        1. Yikes. Says it all.

        2. Along with 80 feet of sea level rise in the next several centuries.. All the mega cities of the world are within 10 feet of sea level rise. Didn’t think of that shit did you. ?

          1. I bet you’re one of those who mocks religion while failing to see that you are in complete thrall to a religion of your own.

          2. 80 feet; really? 80 feet. Show your work, how you arrived at the calculation given that the surface of the earth is 71 percent water. And don’t quote “Al the Liar Gore” either.

    3. “Science” does not say anything. ever, period.

      A significant number, a majority even, of scientists, who make their living from government grants to study climate change, maintain that man-made climate change is a massive crisis.

      A significant number of scientists, a WIDE majority, do NOT agree that main-made climate change is a massive crisis.

      This is an important distinction. The followers of the first group, commonly called believers (the commonality with religion here speaks volumes) regularly reject the right or ability of the second group to even voice opinions. They maintain that only the first group is qualified to have an opinion.

      I, on the other hand, pay no attention at all to the first group for a couple of reasons.

      First, those who go into climate science are much like those who go into Baptist Seminary. They do not choose that field of study because they have an open mind, the choose it because they ALREADY BELIEVE and want to gain the ability to “save” others.

      1. Second, the first group has a built in monetary bias. If man-made climate change was proven to be a non-issue next week, half of these guys would be out of work next year and the other half would make less money.

        Thus we see all the wild and wooly data manipulation. They already know what the “right” answer is. If the data does not support it well enough, it must be that the data is incorrect. Naturally, the follow on is to “fix” the data, and they do.

        So Jack, you are not going to gain new followers here, any more that a Baptist preacher is posts here is going to gain converts. Ultimately, your points amount to “you are going to destroy the earth and we will all die” much like the preacher telling us “you are going to wallow in sin and spend eternity in HELL!.

        1. And just for grins, I will point out that this data manipulation is pretty blatant. It is done with no scientific or engineering basis either.

          The engineering point is important because instrumentation, data collection, cata calibration, data logging, and data modeling are not the realm of scientists, but rather that of engineers, specifically, Control Systems Engineers. This is an actual field of practice that in most states has an actual professional licensing component. You will also notice that no professionals who practice in this field are used to “correct” the climate data, the climate scientists do it themselves, and do their best not to disclose how they did it.

          Oh, and I am a Control Systems Engineer, so I actually AM an “expert” (or would be in a court of law) in this area. Of course, I am sure you will launch right into saying that only a climate scientist can have a valid opinion here because, well JUST BECAUSE! 😀

          1. Actually I wont.

      2. A significant number of scientists, a WIDE majority, do NOT agree that main-made climate change is a massive crisis.

        Cite, asshole.

        1. STFU, moron.

    4. Scientists? What scientists? Real scientists follow the Scientific Method. “Climate scientists” REFUSE to do so. Explain why.

      Your AAS citation comes from an organization that is run by corrupt leftists, an organization that in the 1980’s hosted seminars on “Marxist Science”.

      The entire edifice of Global! Warming! Catastrophe! comes from the claim that the Earth’s climate is dynamically unstable (has postive feedback) with respect to temperature perturbations. Nowhere in the geologic or historical record is this demonstrated. Why didn’t the “seas boil” (per James Hansen) during the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period? Why didn’t the Little Ice Age cause a plunge into Iceball Earth? The fact that those events did not happen is comphrensive proof that the Earth’s climate is not dynamically unstable.

      But all we get from the ecofascists is lie after lie after lie – piled on top of blatant frauds:

      Yamal.

      Short-centered Principle Components Analysis.

      Sheep Mountain.

      “Censored” FTP directories.

      Upside Down Tijlander.

      Hide The Decline.

      Glaciergate.

      Glieckgate

      28gate

    5. The science is an ass, too.

  4. Just another friendly reminder that the US is not ruled by the best and brightest, the cream of the crop.

    No, it is ruled by a self-selected group of the dumbest, most craven whores imaginable.

    1. The best and brightest go into business, and have been doing so for decades. The rewards are amazing. It is way more fun. You get to be creative, you get to explore ideas. Who in the world, with half a brain would go into politics. Which is why you get the world about to be run by a Hillary Clinton, instead of a Steve Jobs.

      Mitt Romney is a bright guy who is socially inarticulate, probably mildly autistic. He would have handled some of the tasks quite well if he had won. He is one of these rare people who can take on giant tasks with 100s of moving parts and can make things happen. But, he had a dog on his roof once 30 years previously (which is actually thinking outside the box), so that disqualified him. The only reason he went into politics is because he had been raised to do so. These people are rare.

      Expect another numbskull. Whoever wins.

  5. “may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.”

    Say it Popey. It’s called scamming and scheming.

    Your rhetoric and whatever policy ideas you may have in mind will be just as bad on that front.

    All based on flawed science bought up by irrational minds.

    1. I really pissed some folks off on another site when I suggested that with all the evil done by socialism, and a Pope who is a hard core socialist, Satan must be pleased to have one of his own as Pope.

      Seems hard to refute to me though.

      1. I see him the same way. More than a ‘useful idiot’. He is an active participant.

  6. The truth is more and more average scientists, as well as laypeople are becoming AGW skeptics. Whereas the ones whose rice bowl depends on grants, as well as the public faces like Bill Nye and Neal Degrasse Tyson (though they have no expertise in this field) double down.

  7. This problem is not going to be solved from the pages of Reason magazine. You opted to be skeptics and charlatans, appeasing the mouth-breathing morons instead of elevating them to an understanding of science. You present the least-objectionable-to-skeptics data and tiptoe around the conclusions. You are cowards. You don’t get to define the terms of this debate.

    1. They certainly don’t get to complain about the solutions being implemented by others. They are being passed by.

      1. It’s a good gig. As time goes on, the necessary actions become more drastic. All the better to bitch about.

        1. The two priests of Gaia warning the sinners that the time is coming!

          1. One day I’m going to write a paper about the radical right’s adoption of skeptical, scientific, and liberal rhetoric in service of their dogmatic, anti-science beliefs.

            I think it’s a sign of your impending irrelevance. Remember how quickly the creationists were relegated to a pouting defeat after they began desperately trying to win the debate on the terms of science, citing bacterial flagella and the like?

            When you’re clinging to calling the global scientific community a cult, you are the one in the cult.

            1. Tony|7.31.15 @ 10:54AM|#
              “One day I’m going to write a paper about the radical right’s adoption of skeptical, scientific, and liberal rhetoric in service of their dogmatic, anti-science beliefs.”

              It’s a shame that one day, you never learned to think.
              Tell it brother! When is the rapture coming?
              Fucking bleevers…..

              1. It’s like a Scientologist calling psychiatry the cult. Not clever but effective.

          2. I hope this conversation keeps going.

      2. They certainly don’t get to complain about the solutions being implemented by others.

        That’s because nothing needs to be done. You only believe this because of man’s misplaced arrogance and your inability to see that climate science dooming is big business. Moreover, the people implementing these ‘solutions’ either are making a buck off it or will mess things up or design policies that will do absolutely squat to ‘solve’ nature’s will.

        1. If making a buck off something, or being big business, is a sin, then to what layer of hell do you consign the oil companies?

          Nature doesn’t have a will, and pumping billions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere isn’t something it just shrugs off, because magic isn’t real.

          1. Oil companies using force of government to maintain subsidies are absolutely horrible. Climatologists (a patently ridiculous term, to begin with) using force of government to maintain subsidies are absolutely horrible. Something about two wrongs is in there…

            1. Government funding of science has done more good for the human species than a thousand libertarians jerking each other off ever will. Governments have to fund science because there is no short-term profit in much of it.

              Believing that climate science among all fields is deliberately concocting a false catastrophe because that somehow accords with politicians’ agendas is, well, one of the most idiotic things people have ever thought. Do you see politicians clamoring to address this issue?

              There is well-funded lying going on. It’s what has been sold to deniers.

              1. Good to know science wasn’t being done before governments funded it – so it’s like the arts, right? Very few claim a widespread conspiracy amongst climate researchers to create a phony catastrophe. Many researchers probably believe all the catastrophism, many probably are going with the perceived flow despite what they truly believe, some are cognizant of how their bread gets buttered. I believe for any one individual perpetuating catastrophism they probably are a mix of many motivations, but, no, they aren’t meeting in an underground lair plotting their next move like you seem to believe the KOCHTOPUSE is doing.

                1. I wonder how much in grant money Archimedes received?

              2. Also, nice false dilemma between ‘government funded science’ or ‘libertarians jerking each other off.’ Still not sure which I would choose, though.

                1. The latter. And I say that as a working scientist.

                  1. OMWC – indeed, I’d never forego a free handy.

              3. Tony when will the shit the fan and how do you know this? What will be the effects? What are your solutions?

              4. Tony is what self-righteous arrogance born of rank stupidity looks like.

          2. Tony, you’re part of the arrogant calculus.

            The earth will be fine. The earth has been dealing with shit far worse than us for far longer.

            As for your tu quoque, the bottom line is it’s the left who constantly babble and accuse their opponents about money. Not the other way around.

            And the track record of environmentalists is a travesty of mass stupidity and missed targets and predictions.

            They’ve spent any credibility currency they had over the last 100 years.

          3. Tony what types of power generation do you use?

            1. Powering full retard actually defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics – it’s self-perpetuating, no need for input.

    2. Tony|7.31.15 @ 10:13AM|#
      “…You are cowards. You don’t get to define the terms of this debate…”

      You’re an imbecilic piece of lefty propaganda, and the only terms you get to define are your fantasies.
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. You’re going to die a moron.

        1. Tony|7.31.15 @ 10:22AM|#
          “You’re going to die a moron.”

          When you die, the world’s IQ will see a noticeable rise. I can only hope it is very soon.

    3. You are the very definition of an unicorn worshiping dimwit. Your credibility is less than ZERO, zero.

  8. I’m actually surprised that more of the public has not swallowed the AGW true believer propaganda that has been going strong for a couple decades now. They over played their hand with the constant stream of total doomsaying. Hope that you have done your part by not having any children to foul the planet Tony.

    1. New Ice Age, Hole in the Ozone Layer, Global Warming….
      It’s hard to keep up with the Calamity Du Jour.

  9. “but the political argument is over. Most Western politicians are committed to combating it”.

    BS, the argument is not over just because one side controls 90% of the media and even with that we should not just roll over heck at one time slavery was not even a political argument but we were able to change most people minds on that issue.

    1. Conspiracy much?

      1. Jackand Ace|7.31.15 @ 10:52AM|#
        “Conspiracy much?”

        No conspiracy claimed, twit. Just a mass of people as stupid as you.

    2. Got a link to a rational case against AGW that has not been thoroughly debunked?

      http://www.skepticalscience.com

      1. That site is pretty bad

      2. What would constitute thoroughly debunked when the goal posts continue to move?

      3. Yes. By “AGW” you of course mean CAGW.

        climateaudit
        wattsupwiththat
        Climate, Etc.

        All these are sites run by real scientists – people who follow the Scientific Method.

        Your citation of the anti-science, anti-human ecofascists at Skeptical Science makes it clear you are willfully ignorant of the issues you are posting on. Explain why we should pay any attention to a site whose owner likes to dress up in Nazi uniforms and engage in identity theft and sock puppet postings on skeptic websites? http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-research/

        1. Dont forget Roy Spencer’s site.

  10. You know what I love most of all about climate science? It’s so flexible!

    I mean, when reality doesn’t conform to your models, you don’t need to concede they’re wrong – just change the models! BOOM, CONSENSUS! Yeah! Science, bitches!!

  11. “A minority makes persuasive alternative cases…” Persuasive to whom?

    Humanity may face “extinction.” That’s just an obvious fear-mongering lie. Even in the worst possible scenario, human extinction is not a possibility due to climate change.

  12. Alright here is my standard:

    IN 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus inaugurated a grand tradition of environmentalism with his best-selling pamphlet on population. Malthus argued with impeccable logic but distinctly peccable premises that since population tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8 ) and food supply to increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4 ), the starvation of Great Britain was inevitable and imminent.

    Almost everybody thought he was right. He was wrong.

    In 1865 an influential book by Stanley Jevons argued with equally good logic and equally flawed premises that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years’ time. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 and again in 1951, the Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

    “Plenty of Gloom”, The economist Dec 18th 1997

    1. There were some entrepreneurs who started a business in which they, being sinners, would take care of Jehova’s Witnesses’ pets after the imminent rapture. Obviously they need to receive payment upfront for their post-rapture services.

      1. ^ This. Aren’t the JW’s the ones who think only 144K people will get into “heaven” and then go around decreasing the odds they one of the 144K?

  13. Remember when eugenics was considered settled science by progressives? The good ol’ days when new-age fascists were just fascist-fascists.

  14. Tony since you arent a scientist how can you comment on its validity? How do you know the scientists know what they are talking about since you arent a scientist?

  15. What would a carbon tax accomplish and would it have any measurable effect on agw?

  16. Setting aside Brown’s preposterously stupid and vague claims about extinction,
    if Brown truly wanted to reduce CO2 , then the obvious means is by building
    nuclear. If not conventional Gen 3 plants, then , for those who are beyond the fringe
    nuclearphobic, the new molten salt designs like those at Transatomic Power can only be opposed by the mentally deficient. Cheaper, inherently safe – safe than wind, solar, etc and able to burn our nuclear wastes , etc they promise an easy and affordable means of reducing carbon (if that is what you want to do – dangers there).

    1. This.

      One of my personal touchstones for whether I’m debating an environmentalist that has any clue whatsoever is their attitude towards nuclear power. It may not be fair of me, but if they start foaming at the mouth when I mention nukes, I’m strongly inclined to think I’m wasting my time in debate.

      It’s saved me a lot of time, so at least there’s that.

    2. Instead, San Onofre was closed, and power is being imported from Palo Verde in AZ.

      1. In fairness, SO was closed due to faults in parts supplied by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi told them, in so many words, “Yeah, so? Shove it.”.

  17. Those on the side of catastrophic AGW often cite how damaging positive feedback loops are to melting ice.

    On the other side of the debate, I don’t think enough is made of the media’s role in the hysteria feedback loop. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a truism that no one disputes. They have an incentive to spin even modest agreement on marginal warming as a catastrophe which will cause TEOTWAWKI.

  18. Is this Brown character gay?

    I mean, everything about this guy is gay as Hell. You can see, smell and hear the gayness dripping from his chin.

    Good grief, he is so breathtakingly gay!

    1. Assuming that’s true, so what? As I’ve stated so many times in my longish life, the validity of a person’s opinions does not depend on the person’s belief-system(s), lifestyles or anything else, and it certainly doesn’t depend on history’s judgment about whether or not the person was a “good” person.

      Brown’s statements (which, let’s be fair, were probably penned by one or more speechwriters with only minimal input from the Governor) stand or fall on their merits, not on whether the guy’s got mannerisms you find personally distasteful.

      1. so he emlys a lot of breathtakingly gay speechwriters.

      2. Well, as we all know, gay people are not only good people, they are actually better people. My pointing out his gayness was out of homage and respect.

        Gayism is good, holy and pure, and is to be adored and respected!

    2. He does bend over for the buggerist agenda.

  19. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  20. If Moonbeam is the ‘last adult’, we’ve taken “Social Promotion” way too far.

  21. Jerry Brown’s governance is about 9000 times more likely to cause human extinction than global tepidning.

    1. I am going to find a coal fired laser wood etching system and make the above a plaque to hand to all my Socal relatives.

      I am looking forward to Global Tepidning.

      My tootsies don’t like cold water anyway.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  23. The thing about mysticism is that its victims dispense with evidence unless it seems to bolster the Revealed Faith. Ask a global warming cultist how much energy is being trapped that shouldn’t be trapped. If they know what energy is and have a clue the answer should be a range of numbers in watts or joules. NEVER will you get that answer because knowing the energy tells what heat has to be reflected away to offset the warming. Indeed, orbiting mirrors could cancel crop-killing frosts and increase the food supply for the 211,000 new people added to the Earth’s population today. Mencken observed that looter politicians trot out an endless stream of hobgoblins to frighten the rubes into wanting a State of Fear. Why not give them something to fear–the diameters of the orbiting mirrors needed to deflect the heat surplus off into space?

  24. Has no one ever heard of nuclear winter?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.