Patterico's Pontifications

11/2/2008

California Propositions

Filed under: 2008 Election — JRM @ 9:27 am



The host has hit the biggies; I’m going to hit them all. These are my views only, and may not reflect the Official Blog Position. For those not in California, I hope you find what we’re voting on interesting:

Prop 1A: No

Proposition 1A is a $19 billion bond to privide for high speed rail connecting central California to Southern California and San Francisco. I believe government’s job includes transportation, and in better economic times, I would support this.

Prop 2: Yes

Proposition 2 requires farms to give some animals sufficient room to move a little bit. I would be a member of an animal rights group if such groups were sane at all. Animals don’t think like humans, but they certainly appear to feel pain, and the housing conditions are awful on some farms. I’ve seen plenty of farms run with very nice conditions – happy cows, even – and reducing the pain to critters who aren’t in such good conditions is worth a few bucks a year.

The panic ads by the anti-Prop 2 folks (Prop 2 will kill children!) are appalling.

Prop 3: No

It’s $2 billion for a children’s hospital bond. I like children. I like medical care. We don’t have $2 billion, so let’s not spend it.

Prop 4: Yes

Pre-existing views: I’m pro-choice, but I despise the arguments made that abortion’s a purely medical procedure entirely up to the woman to the point of birth. I’m for roughly the rules determined in Roe v. Wade, even though I’m of the strong opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

But that’s not what this is really about.

Sure, I’d like the protections in Prop 4 for teens in dysfunctional family units to be stronger than they are now, but all in all, parental notification seems like a good idea. Note that this is a parental-consent [Edit: Notification, not consent. Words are hard. Thanks to commentator MayBee] issue, not a parental-permission issue – it’s still the minor’s choice. That’s a big difference.

Prop 5: No

You need to understand the current position: If you possess drugs and aren’t committing other crimes, you’re just not going to jail. (Yes, you can find a way to go to jail this way, but it’s really hard.) The prisons aren’t filled with non-violent drug offenders.

This proposition destroys the tiny vestiges of prosecuting drug crimes, and it’s going to result in people who are committing non-drug crimes getting treatment rather than jail. What happens if they don’t get the treatement? They get warned! Presumably sternly.

Prop 5 will result in more murders. A fair number of drug treatment folks oppose Prop 5. This is a total disaster. This isn’t just Prop 36 (which has been mostly ineffective, but I understand the point.) This isn’t Drug Court, which works better than other programs. This is a free pass.

For those of you who are professional thieves, though, make sure to keep a meth pipe at home. Then if you get caught, claim drug addiction.

Prop 6: No

Warning: Probably not the official blog position.

Prop 6 increases and mandates a substantial funding increase to the criminal justice system, and presumably saves some of the jobs my office might lose.

The criminal justice system needs to get funded. I don’t particularly trust the legislature to do it right, but this sort of mandate is hard to justify when we need to cut spending dramatically. When the budget stabilizes, I expect law enforcement to be better funded.

Prop 7: No

Prop 7 is a solar/wind power initiative requiring providers to increase the amount of alternative energy used. Even if we concede that private enterprise needs governmental encouragement to go to cleaner energy, Prop 7 isn’t the answer. This is designed to shut out small providers of alternative energy, which doesn’t strike me as a good idea.

Prop 8: No

Patterico’s views are very similar to mine. The pro-8 ads say it will restore traditional marriage. I asked Mrs. JRM if our marriage was untraditional since the courts ruled to enforce gay marriage on a “It seems like a nice thing to do” theory. Mrs. JRM rolled her eyes. No change here, then.

I view the court’s ruling on this as wrong, even though I view gay marriage as an overall good. I don’t expect a massive election of homosexuality to erupt if Prop 8 fails.

Prop 9: No recommendation

Prop 9 expands victim’s rights to give them a voice during the charging phase, and to be notified of every court hearing involving their case. It also sets longer parole dates for life inmates, and restricts early release of inmates. I like the sound of that.

My problems with Prop 9 are primarily technical. One example is the statement that victims may refuse deposition or discovery requests by the defendant, and to refuse interviews. This is roughly the same as it is now – but victims can refuse to talk to anyone, except when in court. Discovery actions are against the prosecution, not the victim. Forbidding civil depositions seems unwise.

Victim’s rights are important – I’ve been the victim of violent crime, and I was displeased with the handling of it. Knowing now what I didn’t know then, I’m still plenty displeased. But California’s Victim’s Bill of Rights works now. New language would likely lead to unnecessary litigation. It’s a difficult call for me on this one, such that I can’t make a recommendation to you.

Prop 10: No

This is a massive subsidy of alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy technology. Since I’m voting against funding me (Prop 6), you can guess what I’m voting on here.

Prop 11: Yes

This places redistricting in the hands of a commission, rather than the legislature. I expect this to be only lightly less politicized, but the fully politicized redistricting we have now isn’t good for the state.

Prop 12: No

This is a $900 million plan to provide loans to veterans for farms and homes. I’m for a fair number of veteran’s programs, but I view this as government getting too far into private enterprise. If we were in a different budget situation, I’d probably still oppose it, but not as strongly.

I hope these blurbs help our California voters. And for those of you far from here, I hope you find it interesting to see what the initiative process brings us.

44 Responses to “California Propositions”

  1. If I have time, I’m going to do recommendations on every proposition myself. Yours look remarkably similar to what I was planning to say. Not entirely, but very close.

    I’m torn on Prop. 9 and was looking forward to seeing what you’d say about it.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  2. Can I construe this as an invitation to post my positions? :) I’ve already voted, and I cast my votes thus:

    Prop 1A: No

    I really want to see high speed rail connect northern and southern California. I voted for it the last time it was on the ballot. But now is a terrible time to be borrowing money on something which would be nice to have (as opposed to something essential) … and there’s absolutely no guarantee the other $30 billion for the project will come together from the sources it’s expected from … and the system almost certainly can’t be built for $40 billion anyhow. If this passes we’ll run out of money building it and have to approve another bond measure in 6-8 years.

    Prop 2: Yes

    I was going to vote against this on the economic argument (that it will raise food prices and maybe drive local producers out of business); but Hugo Schwyzer talked me out of it by pointing out how cruel the current system is to chickens, and some friends of mine who keep chickens (home-grown eggs taste much better than store bought ones, incidentally) echoed his concerns.

    Prop 3: No

    This is a better use of borrowing than Prop 1A, but it’s still unnecessary borrowing.

    Prop 4: No

    This strikes me as an attempt to ensure that children who have normal family lives talk to their parents about abortions. It comes at the cost of making things more difficult for children who have abnormal family lives. The provision for going around the family in this are better than in the last one; but as someone who grew up in an emotionally abusive family, I don’t find them sufficient. The people who will be hurt by this are less able to deal with the cost being imposed than the people who will be helped by it are.

    Prop 5: No

    In addition to your problems with it, this proposition mandates that the state legislature allocate a certain amount of money per year to a particular program. Each time we budget by initiative, it becomes harder and harder for the legislature to pass a budget, and state government gets that much more dysfunctional.

    Prop 6: No

    See Prop 5.

    Prop 7: No

    A solar/wind power initiative which the major environmental groups are against? While I understand the plain language of the initiative, the second and third order effects are opaque to me; I can’t tell how this will actually effect the market … but the environmental groups say it’s a bad plan, and i’m inclined to believe them.

    Prop 8: No

    This initiative would prohibit the state from recognizing my marriage.

    Prop 9: No

    Victims rights’ are good. Restricting early release of inmates and setting longer parole dates, in a context in which our prisons are horribly overcrowded and we don’t seem to be able to muster the money to build more, is going to impose large costs on the system … and in any event should be a seperate initiative and not bundled with victims’ rights.

    Prop 10: No

    A significant chunk of the bond money would be used to bribe people to buy alternative energy and hybrid vehicles. (Note: I drive a hybrid). Borrowing money for capital investment can be ok; borrowing money to fund current expenses like bribing people to buy cars we like is … a bad idea. We’ll be paying off the bond long after the end of the cars’ useful life.

    Prop 11: Yes

    I voted against the last one because it used retired judges and I thought it would unnecessarily further politicize the judiciary. This is an entirely different kettle of fish, as the saying goes. There is a wierd technical issue that I expect the state’s lawyers to get past easily (the members of the commission are required to have voted in two of the last three elections; some have argued this means that anyone who voted in three of the last three elections could not be on the commission, but I think that argument will fail).

    Prop 12: No

    We’ve been doing this for years and the program seems to generally be successful. We shouldn’t be borrowing money unnecessarily in this economic climate.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  3. Patterico:

    I’m probably voting no on Prop 9. I don’t think the benefits outweigh the litigation problems. I also think the parole provisions probably go too far. But it’s a sticky one.

    I’m looking forward to your runthrough, if you get the time. I’d like to hear what the other Californian voting McCain/Yes on 2/Yes on 4/No on 8 thinks on the rest.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  4. Argh. I missed a closing italic tag.

    [Fixed it for you. — JRM]

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  5. Note that this is a parental-consent issue, not a parental-permission issue – it’s still the minor’s choice. That’s a big difference.

    Is there some subtle legal difference between consent and permission that I don’t know?

    MayBee (3114aa)

  6. MayBee: D’oh! Thanks. I fixed it above. (I meant to say notification.)

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  7. Thanks, JRM. Having been confused about the proposition before, I was re-confused. Now I’m de-confused again.

    MayBee (3114aa)

  8. MayBee, I don’t want to speak for JRM, but I think he misspoke; it’s a parental notification measure which simply requires that parents be told. Their consent is not required.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  9. “Animals don’t think like humans, but they certainly appear to feel pain”

    Plants feel pain too, but they are too rigid to show it without time-lapse photography. WHY IS NO ONE PROTECTING THE POOR PLANTS!?!

    Kevin (5ac156)

  10. California is broke, incompetent and has some 25 billion in shortfalls. Why not a proposition to limit legislators to 1 week a year and no pay.

    California, the golden state is destitute and derilict in its governance. Why do anything that will cost money or chase more earners and job providers out of the state?

    Typical Whte Person (9f4d2e)

  11. Comment by Typical Whte Person — 11/2/2008 @ 10:46 am

    You should direct this enquiry to Arnold, along with the Dem and GOP leaders in the State Senate, and Assembly.

    Don’t expect any type of answer that is germane.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  12. 16.6% of federal prisoners in 1994 were non-violent drug law violators with no criminal history; an additional 4.6% had minimal criminal history.
    Two-thirds of these non-violent drug law violators received mandatory minimum sentences.
    42.3% were couriers or played other peripheral roles, yet many received mandatory sentences.
    Mandatory sentences depend on the quantity of the drug, rather than the severity of the crime, thus sometimes applying long sentences to peripheral players.

    -from drugpolicy.org

    Just a quick snippet…. There are quite a few non-violent drug offenders in prison.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  13. TruthNJustice: your citation is irrelevant. It discusses federal prisoners. The proposition in question addresses state prisoners.

    The voters of the state cannot pass an initiative which would control who goes to federal prison.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  14. re: Kevin 11/2/2008 @ 10:45 am

    The Swiss are!

    From an article in the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, (paid subscription required by WSJ, though)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html

    Switzerland’s Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants’ Rights

    Who Is to Say Flora Don’t Have Feelings? Figuring Out What Wheat Would Want

    “ZURICH — For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?

    That’s a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without trampling on a plant’s dignity…”

    JoeH (eeb280)

  15. Comment by truthnjustice — 11/2/2008 @ 11:04 am

    -from drugpolicy.org

    Isn’t that like asking NORML for an impartial opinion an Marijuana laws?

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  16. Comment by JoeH — 11/2/2008 @ 11:11 am

    Congratulations!

    You have just cited the beginning of the decline of Switzerland as a home for innovative, cutting-edge chemical and biological research.

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  17. Isn’t that like asking NORML for an impartial opinion an on Marijuana laws?

    Another Drew (2d9338)

  18. California was a wonderful place when I came here in 1956. It had the best schools, the best highways, the best universities, and the best life style. Now that my last child is out of high school, I am taking steps to leave before it collapses. Rule by the modern Democratic party is no better than the rule in Zimbabwe. Arizona has also deteriorated but the rate seems to be less than California and so I am going there as soon as I can disentangle myself from California. Selling my house will probably be the largest barrier.

    Now, Obama will bring rule by the modern Democratic party to the nation. God help us. Voting on these propositions seems a small act of damage control (such as no on 1A) but it is probably too late.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  19. I already voted and am happy to say that you and I agree on every single proposition. I would guess that our votes on the candidates are very close, too.

    SueC (99a8b2)

  20. I also would whole-heartedly support Typical Whte Person’s proposed proposition. California’s government is a joke. And like Mike K, we will be fleeing this state as soon as possible.

    SueC (99a8b2)

  21. I’m not sure I understand the argument regarding extended time between parole hearings.

    If we don’t have the space, these folks will be released anyway. Why not codify longer waits, which serves as an incentive for felons to get “right” more quickly? Seems to me that if a felon is simply not motivated to rehabilitate, we shouldn’t waste time and treasure on constant hearings.

    Ed (d7cda1)

  22. “…it’s a parental notification measure which simply requires that parents be told. Their consent is not required.”

    So who pays for that? Given that parents are bound by law to be financially responsible for their children until age 18, if they don’t have the right to refuse consent, does this mean they also have the right to refuse to pay for the abortion, the doctor’s fees, the clinic fees, the “Who-Knew-That-Was-Used-In-An-Abortion” fees?

    DL Sly (23a466)

  23. I usually vote against all bonds. The one exception I make is for Cal-Vet bonds. My understanding is that the program has never had to come back to the taxpayers to cover the payments. Everything is repaid from the loans made to individual borrowers. Theoretically, it could happen, but I think they have a 50-60 year track record.

    I confess that I’ve not read through all the ballot arguments/texts yet (been phone banking for McCain). Is there something different about this bond that concerns you? Not sarcasm; I really want to know if they’ve slipped in a poison pill I should look out for.

    fat tony (f86b83)

  24. I drive a hybrid and intend to install solar photovoltaic next major house upgrade. Yet I oppose 7 & 10 as counterproductive, wasteful and rent-seeking.

    It is becoming clear that the initiative process needs to have some protections against “private bills.” California has so much wealth that the process invites abuse by scoundrels, confident that the voters don’t have the time or energy to ferret them out. Ironically, this is one case where the legislature is a better defense against crooks.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  25. I asked my wife if gay marriage would affect our lawn care, and she rolled her eyes and said no, so if it doesn’t affect our lawn, it must be the right thing to do.

    Everything has consequences. I don’t understand why I am branded a hater or afraid of gay people if I don’t like some of the consequences that have already taken place when 4 Judges overrode the voice of the people. A second grade class field trip to a gay wedding doesn’t not affect me or my marriage, but it does affect the future.

    Sorry… call me a hater, but Yes 0n 8.

    RCC (764fc5)

  26. “Yes on 8″ and “Yes on 11″ are the only reason I’m bothering to show up on Tuesday.
    I sure as hell know McCain hasn’t earned my vote, yet he gets it by default anyway.

    The REAL haters seem to be “no on 8″ crowd, so don’t let them confuse you with their own rhetoric.
    Besides they will still hate you anyways, if only because you are a Republican, so why a appease them?

    Besides, the only reason Prop 8 is on the ballot is because of the California Supreme Court decided to invalidate an earlier law enacted through Prop 22 (voted in to law by the citizens of California in 2000) by claiming it was unconstitutional.

    This time we get to fix that loophole for good so the pointy headed judicial activists and social engineers think twice before subverting the will of us voters.

    Prop 8 is WAY more than the opponents of it want you to think.

    Jimmy (a5aae7)

  27. Proposition 7 is a restatement of AB32, California’s complete buy-in on Al Gore’s dreadful documentary
    (with minor quntitative modifications {50% from so called “clean energy” sources by 2025, rather then 2050}.)

    Prop 7 is the continuation of legislation via fictional Hollywood horror shock-u-menary.
    Notice that the polls have gone against the belief that global warming is “the greatest danger facing mankind” since the beginning, but no politician ever lost an election pretending to care about the polar bears.

    Already the eco-lobbiests have read the tea leaves and know without a doubt that their pet disaster/revolution in tax revenues, will be trounced at the ballot box, and they have preemptively moved to reframe their impending defeat as “the wrong vehicle” for controlling the climate.

    Don’t let them fool you. If Prop 7 is the wrong vehicle, then the whole state have been riding in the wrong wagon since AB32 passed.

    Hell, as if they could control the weather.
    No politician who has bought into Al Gore’s fantasy deserves be trusted in a position of authority. Period.
    Unfortunately every politician pays lip service to AGW, and that’s the only way the issue survives.

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  28. Catholic Charities was driven out of the adoption business in MA, something they had been very very successful at, when MA endorsed Same-sex marriages.

    That’s why I’m voting Yes on 8. Because SSM is not an end, but a means.

    Unless you believe there is absolutely no difference between the sexes, then one shouldn’t buy into the illustion that SSM couples are the equal of opposite-sex couples. SSM couples should be able to make contracts of medical care/proxy, inheritance, etc, but it isn’t marriage.

    my 2 cents, otherwise I agree down the line with recommendations

    Darleen (187edc)

  29. I am struck by the fact that all of the things which the NO ON PROP 8 people say will never happen have already happened.
    In schools the mention of Christmas is forbidden, but gay awarness week is noted with flyers sent home with children.
    Easter is dissallowed, but “National Coming Out” day is observed.
    The teaching of marriage is required in section 51933 subsection a7 of the California Education Code, but Jack O’Connell says in campaign ads that “Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage”.

    Someone explain this to me.

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  30. The only place where I voted differently than JRM (having just put my absentee ballot in the mailbox) was on 2, where I was largely persuaded by the argument that passing 2 would probably just move the business out of state (and often to Mexico). Though I’m pro-life, so 4 was a non-brainer.

    Dave (7aa8c7)

  31. Interesting, thanks. 1A and 12.

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  32. Besides, the only reason Prop 8 is on the ballot is because of the California Supreme Court decided to invalidate an earlier law enacted through Prop 22 (voted in to law by the citizens of California in 2000) by claiming it was unconstitutional.

    This is not true.

    The signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot were submitted to the Secretary of State before the Court issued a ruling in the case.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  33. The REAL haters seem to be “no on 8″ crowd, so don’t let them confuse you with their own rhetoric.
    Besides they will still hate you anyways, if only because you are a Republican, so why a appease them?

    There are a number of people who have commented in this thread and the other thread who are opposed to Proposition 8. I’m not aware that any of us have done it in a hateful way, and most of us are Republicans.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  34. Aphrael, I fail to see what motive the Yes on 8 folks would have had to enact a constitutional amendment that was worded identically to Prop 22 unless the whole point was to preemptively respond to the CA Supreme Court ruling that was handed down. If the Supremes had upheld the original initiative, what purpose would have been served by constitutionalizing it?

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  35. XRLQ: it’s certainly fair to say that the measure was placed on the ballot because supporters were afraid that the California Supreme Court would constitutionalize gay marriage and wanted to prevent it.

    But that’s a different claim than the claim that the measure was placed on the ballot because supporters were angry that the California Supreme Court had already constitutionalized gay marriage.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  36. As I remember this, the Initiative (#8) was written, and the petitions circulated in response to the CA-SC taking the case. The petitions were only submitted for ratification, and inclusion on the ballot, after the Court had handed down its’ decision.

    Another Drew (8298c0)

  37. Another Drew: the petitions were circulated in response to the case being taken, yes. The petitions were submitted the week before the decision was handed down.

    This update from the Secretary of State on ballot propositions, dated April 28, shows that the petitions had been returned (by the April 28 deadline) and the signatures were being verified. This report from the State Supreme Court shows that the decision was handed down on May 15.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  38. How will NO on Prop 8 discriminate gays? What rights will be taken away? There is a law that allows gay couples to “MARRY” so that they will get the equal benefit as opposite sex couples do. And as for the school field trip to their gay teacher……when was the last time they went to a same sex couple wedding for school field trip?

    apple kim (4afe35)

  39. An interesting conversation showing the brilliance (sneakiness?) of Jerry Brown: I spoke with a friend who was AGAINST gay marriage, so of course he was prepared to vote NO on Prop 8.

    I pointed out that a “No” vote is in support of gay marriage. A “Yes” vote keeps marriage between one man and one woman.

    He still scratched his head.

    RCC (764fc5)

  40. Actually Prop 7 does NOT shut out small providers. PG&E, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison hired a law firm to concoct a complicated legal argument in order to make that claim. In fact, the independent Legislative Analysts’s Office and the Attorney General rejected those arguments, and both the Berkeley Center for Law and Environmental Policy and McGeorge Law School Initiative Review concluded that Prop 7 would never be interpreted to exclude small providers.

    Prop.7 is a good measure with the support of four Nobel Laureates, S. David Freeman (who ran SMUD, LADWP and the Tennessee Valley Authority and got CA out of the 2001 energy crisis) and Dr. Don Aitken (original proponent of the Renewables Portfolio Standards) and Dolores Huerta (co-founder of the United Farm Workers and state chair of the Yes on 7 campaign).

    Vote yes on 7 if you want to vote for a clean, renewable energy future.

    And check out my blog if you want more info: http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/

    Solar Cali Girl (cc89c4)

  41. I already tore into your No on 8. Here’s a swipe at another Emo opinion; Prop. 2.
    Where do you live? LA right? Why do you spoiled urbanites have the gall to telling farmers and ranchers how to raise food and handle livestock?
    You literally don’t know shit.
    So, accepting you’re an agriculture ignoramous let’s try liberty & economics. Imagine you have a business, an egg ranch like one of the two in my general neighborhood in Lakeside, California. You’ve been producing fresh local eggs for your neighbors for at least 2 generations. Your chickens are all in raised cages so the great majority of feces and general dirt & feathers falls to the ground for easy cleaning. I’ll guess you employ 20 – 30 people including the truckers. As of November 5th your operation will be illegal (I’m sure there’s a period of time to get into compliance). There’s no way to maintain your production levels as a “free range” producer. Land prices in Lakeside now won’t allow expansion and beside neighbors, such as our blogger, would just as soon kick your smelly ass out of town if they could. You own your property and it’s worth a small fortune stripped bare.
    What would you do?
    So, phony conservative that you are, you’d outlaw by majority vote a neighbor’s business so you could have a Bambi tingle up your leg.

    Richard L. (ba6e1b)

  42. Richard L: the provisions of Proposition 2 do not take effect until 2015, so “as of November 5th your operation will be illegal” is a broad overstatement.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  43. I notice that solarcaligirl is using the “appeal to authority” argument again.
    Isn’t that where the global warming issue begins and ends?
    “Al Gore says it’s important. He wouldn’t say that if it wasn’t true” says the AGW believer.
    “The UN says it’s important. They wouldn’t say that if it wasn’t true.”

    Never mind the millions of dollars Al pockets, and the billions of dollars in research grants the UN funnels to crooks in lab coats.

    Here is an excerpt of the solar and clean energy act of 2008.
    “The people of California find and declare the following:
    Global warming and climate change is now a real crisis. With the polar ice caps continuing to melt, temperatures rising worldwide, increasing greenhouse gases, and dramatic climate changes occuring, we are quickly reaching the tipping point. California is facing a serious threat from rising sea levels, increasing drought, and melting Sierra snowpack that feed our water supply.”

    The poles as in plural were never melting, even back in 1998 when the current heating trend ended.
    The North polar ice cap has returned to the 1979-2000 average ice area.
    Worldwide temperatures, even as tabulated by NOAA for the expressed purpose of pushing this fiction, have dropped below the 1988 level which is the point where James Hansen launched this hokum.
    The manufacture of solar panels, which the proponents of Prop 7 call “clean energy”, necessarily expel nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) into the atmosphere. NF3 is a greenhouse gas which is 17,000 times more potent then CO2, and it stays resident in the atmsphere for 700 years or more, where as CO2 is a natural constituent, which is cycled by plant life in five years or less.
    If there have been any changes or rising of sea levels the effect is well masked because the Argo arrays 3000 floating bouys haven’t found it.
    Sierra snow packs fluxuate wildly from year to year, but the trend is that warmer years, such as 1998 provide higher snowpack levels on average and lower temperature years, like 2007 and 2008, leave lower snowpacks.
    This is because heated air holds more moisture.

    You see AGW proponents have to resort to the supposed authority of dishonest people, because the science is all against them.

    The appeal to authority is all they got.

    papertiger (feba14)

  44. Comment by Solar Cali Girl — 11/3/2008 @ 2:00 am

    S. David Freeman, if not a Democrat, would have been prosecuted and jailed for the extortionate rates he charged (as head of the LADWP) during the Electrical Crisis of 2000 for peak power. The LADWP was actually charging more than the “bad guys” at Enron.

    What a crock!

    Another Drew (7e15a8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2976 secs.