http://amillionlemmings.blogspot.com/
Well it is just a good thing that California isn’t one of those states “dependent on fossil fuels.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- roaddog on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Bob G on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- GeologyJim on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
You really shouldn’t depict your followers this way, that’s degrading. Some of them can think for themselves and question your motives for cherry picking data.
You are quite correct. I attended a scientific conference today. At the luncheon I was at a table with 11 other scientists. It was 12 for 12 that climate change was a joke. I believe you would have to call that a consensus, and based on that sampling it would also indicate that `the science is settled’.
Reality is when you `get with’ scientists who aren’t so blinded by belief ‘, the scientific consensus is crashing. I have even been accepted to write an article for a scientific society where I will present examples of bad data, bad practice, distortion, gate keeping, on and on with respect to climate science. And this is from a group where only two years ago the `science was settled’. Cheers.
Bendon, if you haven’t figured it out by now, there are no “followers” here. (Well, you probably qualify as one.) There’s just some independent thinkers with like minded interests.
“California stands to send a strong message to other states and Congress……….”
Uhmm, hate to burst the bubble, but most of the rest of the country has long given up the addiction of wondering or even caring what the wingnuts of the left coast do or don’t do. I simply consider it a place to put the miscreants of this country……….oh, yeh, and the miscreants of our friends to the south! Can’t leave them out!
Well it is just a good thing that California isn’t one of those states “dependent on fossil fuels.”
Uh, you do understand that what they’re referring to is states that depend on fossil fuels for income, right? Oil states? Coal states? Hello?
Did you not get this, or did you intentionally twist it? Which is it?
Chris, I think you’re missing the point. I can’t speak for Steven, but I believe he was pointing to the ludicrous assertion that you just made. All states in the Union rely on “fossil fuels” for income. Yes, what you stated is probably true in regards to the meaning of the article. Steven’s picture shows what an asinine statement it is. In many ways, I’m hopeful California doesn’t pass the initiative. Then, California can serve a purpose, once again. We, then, could shine the light of truth one them and they can be a shining example of how not to run a state! Sadly, while many times in the past they could have been such a shining example, not enough people were paying attention, so, I’m not 100% confident the rest of the country would make mockery of them as they should. We’ll have to wait and see.
Yes, what you stated is probably true in regards to the meaning of the article
No, it was undeniablytrue in regard to the specific sentence Steve misused. It was not talking about fossil-fuel-dependent states in general. It was speaking specifically about the states that blocked the climate legislation. Those were the fuel-producing states, not the fuel-consuming states.
To say that Steve meant something other than what he said is, well, it’s just weaselly, IMO.
Chris, you don’t see the fallacy of the argument? What state doesn’t economically dependent upon on fossil fuels? Yes, that’s what the article meant, but the assertion is wrong. You’re taking Steven to task for pointing out the fallacious assertion? Or are you upset about the mocking tone in his sentence? The article made a statement Steven disagreed with, apparently. Or do you think his “followers”(as Brendon put it) will be tricked into believing his mockery as gospel?
Chris, there’s some things here(on this site) in which righteous indignation would be appropriate. This isn’t one of them.
Or do you think his “followers”(as Brendon put it) will be tricked into believing his mockery as gospel?
I think he conveniently ignored half the sentence in order to mock it, is what I think. See below.
Uh, ChrisD, I miss you point. California is a leading producer of crude oil. The ranking is 1.Texas, 2.Alaska and 3.California (barely behind Alaska).http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_rankings.cfm?keyid=28&orderid=1
Now, as a consumer of energy per capita, it is fifth lowest usage, but that is total energy usage. Now for CO2 emissions, California is 14th from the top. With all that DATA, AB32 is the biggest waste of time and money anyone dream up.
California is a leading producer of crude oil.
Read the sentence from the article again:
Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein were not among the lawmakers in question. California may have energy income, but it’s not a state that’s “dependent on fossil fuels” with lawmakers in opposition to the bill. That’s the topic of the sentence that Steve twisted around. But he only used half of it:
He left out the “with opposition from lawmakers” part, didn’t he? So let’s revisit Steve’s sentence and fix it:
Well, it’s not.
You seem to care a lot about politics ChrisD. The IPCC manipulates science to achieve it’s political goals. Is that why you like the IPCC brand of science?
You seem to care a lot about politics ChrisD. The IPCC manipulates science to achieve it’s political goals. Is that why you like the IPCC brand of science?
Gee, I don’t know. Is that why so many of your responses (a) don’t respond, and (b) drag in the IPCC no matter how remote it is from the subject?
California has a lot of oil and gas. At one time Long Beach was covered with wells. Ever heard of the La Brea tar pits?
You’re still completely missing the point, aren’t you? Please let me know which of California’s Senators contributed to the collapse of the momentum that the article refers to. Thanks.
ChrisD, are you saying that the opposition of “law-makers” is a form of “noble-cause corruption” that is acceptable to you? Even when the “law-makers” buried documents showing the economic ruin of building an economy on “regulators” but no resource revenue(oil/mineral/etc), no manufacturing revenue(hi-tech/low-tech), just service revenue and the fairy-green-tech (which requires semiconductors that were ran out of the state in the late 90s)?
You are delusional and corrupt thinking that way. I look forward to welcoming our dark-republican overlords.
ChrisD, are you saying that the opposition of “law-makers” is a form of “noble-cause corruption” that is acceptable to you?
Get a grip. I didn’t say anything even remotely like that. I don’t know what you think is gained by arguing against things that people didn’t say, but it’s rather transparent.
When you see a caption like that above and a comment on how that state doesn’t rely on fossil fuels and don’t understand the humor there is not a lot of hope left. Great job Mr Goddard. Got a great laugh from that.
a comment on how that state doesn’t rely on fossil fuels
Wow. Is this intentional? What I said was that—unlike West Virginia et al, the states the article is clearly referring to—California doesn’t rely on fossil fuels for income.
I know you guys like to misrepresent virtually everything science-believers say, but, for God’s sake, that’s right here in this page. It’s not even necessary to click a link to show that what you said is wrong.
California has a huge fossil fuels industry.
But they don’t have lawmakers who helped torpedo the climate bill, now do they?
ChrisD says:
But they don’t have lawmakers who helped torpedo the climate bill, now do they?
——————–
That’s it, keep moving that goalpost. First it was “California doesn’t rely on fossil fuels for income”, and when that was debunked it became “But they don’t have lawmakers who helped torpedo the climate bill”.
It could be that Barbara Boxer will lose next Tuesday. She has been a big global warming advocate in Washington.
Inhofe to Boxer – We Won, You Lost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93Fp_kmrz4