Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Mission creeping for Bay Area air board

Uploaded: May 8, 2014
When discussing the Alameda County StopWaste government organization, I mentioned "mission creep" taking place when the organization has succeeded in its basic mission of reducing solid waste going to landfills and was continuing to find reasons to stay in existence. Of course, it needed more money to pursue that expanded mission.
The latest example is the Bay Area air pollution board—the folks who shut down Bay Area bakeries for air emissions and throw a giant damper on the wood burning fire places during the holiday season.
The agency has succeeded in cleaning up the Bay Area air substantially over many years, but now plans to expand its mission to include jousting with global warming—it will expand its mission to work to reduce gases such as carbon dioxide. Of course, we all produce C02 when we exhale—plants rely on the gas as well---how a majority of the Supreme Court could manage to decide it is a pollutant remains a mystery.
The regional air board declared its intention to engage in the global warming wars and somehow do so in coordination with the state air board that has jurisdiction.
It is simply a bad idea. The amount of money that will be wasted statewide is staggering, but to engage in local efforts is to multiply the folly. Consider how much we already pay in higher costs for electricity (50 percent higher than in the South where jobs are growing rapidly) and gasoline (70-80 cents per gallon because of the special blend required by environmental laws).
The grand folly is for we humans, who cannot predict the weather accurately more than a few days out, to dream that actions we take will affect the global climate decades into the future.
The report out of the White House this week on the climate change topped the news outlets for a couple of days and tried to drive home the idea that science is settled. Since when is science ever settled? The theory is human-caused climate change is inherently loaded with assumptions that guide the computer modeling—change the assumptions and the results change.
If you want to comment, the local reps on the Bay Area board are Alameda County Supervisors Scott Haggerty and Nate Miley (both of whom represent the valley), Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, San Ramon Councilman Dave Hudson and Contra Costa Supervisors Mary Piepho and John Gioia.

Comments

Posted by You are being robbed by StopWaste, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 8, 2014 at 8:54 am

Thanks, Tim
for pointing this out.

These are the same bureaucrats who are taking money from people in a very sneaky fashion.

See:

Web Link

So most people never voted or even considered these "Fees", or are they "Taxes".

I do not think it is legal, but it certainly is not ethical.
Apparently, they send out junk mail, asking people to object,
and if most people ignore it, they claim there's no objection,
and yet another tax goes into effect.
How can this be legal?
If it is, we need to change some laws!

Tim said it: —their "No. 1 goal is to stay in business." see:

Web Link


Posted by Giving Away Your Money, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 8, 2014 at 8:59 am

Posted by Stop the Mission Creep, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 2, 2014 at 12:55 pm-(reposted.)

Apparently Stopwaste already has so much of your money and so little to do that they are offering to give it away.

An article in the 1/31/14 PW says:
Web Link

They are looking to give away money they are taking from your Garbage bills.
"Grants typically range between $25,000 and $65,000."

I don't want to pay for their "Benchmark Service", much less for grants to expand their bureaucracy.
And I sure do not want them trying to pass more restrictive laws and policies, much less pay them to do that.

IF you haven't already, go up to the earlier posts, read and opt out! The money you save is your own!


Posted by Giving Away Your Money, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 8, 2014 at 8:59 am

Posted by Stop the Mission Creep, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 2, 2014 at 12:55 pm-(reposted.)

Apparently Stopwaste already has so much of your money and so little to do that they are offering to give it away.

An article in the 1/31/14 PW says:
Web Link

They are looking to give away money they are taking from your Garbage bills.
"Grants typically range between $25,000 and $65,000."

I don't want to pay for their "Benchmark Service", much less for grants to expand their bureaucracy.
And I sure do not want them trying to pass more restrictive laws and policies, much less pay them to do that.

IF you haven't already, go up to the earlier posts, read and opt out! The money you save is your own!


Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on May 9, 2014 at 10:24 am

"Of course, we all produce C02 when we exhale—plants rely on the gas as well---how a majority of the Supreme Court could manage to decide it is a pollutant remains a mystery."

It's only a "mystery" to gullible right wing propaganda victims and the terminally ignorant - to the extent that that is not a redundancy.

It's understandable that you're clueless regarding climate science, Tim - but your analysis is laughable. We need water, too - are you suggesting that it's a mystery why some people think that floods are a problem?

"The grand folly is for we humans, who cannot predict the weather accurately more than a few days out, to dream that actions we take will affect the global climate decades into the future."

Obviously there is no hole in the ozone over Antarctica, then, correct? Also, the Cuyahoga River never caught fire, coral reefs are flourishing all over the world, and Dodo birds still exist. Because humans couldn't have been responsible for changing things like that, right? And by the same token it clearly is folly to think that the activity of humans - such as pumping out billions of tons of CO2, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere by almost 100% and rising each year - could actually affect anything.

We can spew our trash and pollution everywhere without any consequences. It's "folly" to think otherwise, right, Tim?


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 10, 2014 at 8:56 am

Tim,

A bit more humility would be appreciated. You may be aware that many Pleasanton Weekly readers have backgrounds in science. As far as I know, you have no background or experience in science at all -- Correct me if I'm wrong.

Then you make a statement like "how a majority of the Supreme Court could manage to decide it (CO2) is a pollutant remains a mystery".

Maybe because they took into advisement what scientifically trained experts explained to them in briefings?


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on May 11, 2014 at 11:46 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Worth repeating: "When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." From Socrates.

People are losing interest in this topic as the facts give lie to years of doom and gloom forecasts about global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change, I mean climate disruption. Which is it today? The idea that while we can't accurately predict the weather next week or next month, we can, however, forecast what will happen in 40 years is absurd. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the arctic ice would be gone by 2013 which was last year. And last year there were some news stories about polar bears suffering from the effects of too much ice.

And assuming that all the dire predictions of the global warmists are true, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "what difference does it make!" While the US has reduced carbon emissions to 1992 levels, we don't control what the other 95% of the world does. As we dismantle our coal powered electric plants, China and India are adding one new coal power plant each week. The focus of the warmists should be there.

So let's have an informed discussion and cease the name calling.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Oh come on Doug what do you know, you're not a SCIENTIST!! <--- sarcasm.

Read the latest on this global scam: Web Link

It's never lost on me that they keep changing the name of the catastrophe to suit current data.

When they have models that can accurately reflect the past, I'll start paying attention. I won't be holding my breath.

Dan


Posted by Dave, a resident of Danville,
on May 12, 2014 at 12:12 am

It's unfortunate that Tim resorts to emotional arguments when logic escapes him.


Posted by Newt Isaacs, a resident of another community,
on May 12, 2014 at 6:04 am

Well, hey there, Dan and Doug. I'm NOT a scientist, so my opinion on global warming is obviously more worthy of your notice and consideration than the 'stuff' you get from those careful, precise experts who've spent their whole lives actually studying the problem.

And I say it's REAL. Why? Because I said so, that's why. Not because there is more certainty and near-unanimity on this point that on any "scientific" theory since Evolution (okay, maybe a bad example for some, but still). Don't trouble yourself about that stuff -- evidence is boring. Listen to MEEEeeee. It's real, and if we delay further because of credulous maroons who are the willing dupes of the self-interested deniers, we.are.doomed.

But not because of science -- because I said so. Case closed.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 12, 2014 at 8:21 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Dear sock-puppet (and you know who you are),

Yes! Because we know that "more certainty" and "near unanimity" = science. <--- sarcasm.

I'm guessing you didn't click on my link did you there genius?

Dan


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on May 12, 2014 at 8:33 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

"those careful, precise experts who've spent their whole lives actually studying the problem...."

These are "experts" who have been found to manipulate the data, ignore data, exclude opinion that differs from their predetermined outcome and, when all else fails, slander those with whom they disagree.

This is why the public has lost interest.


Posted by Peter Kluget, a resident of Danville,
on May 12, 2014 at 4:10 pm

"...the facts give lie to years of doom and gloom forecasts about global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change, I mean climate disruption. Which is it today?"

The part I love is where you accuse others of "name-calling."

None of what you wrote was true. There was never a consensus - or even an opinion shared by a significant number of climate scientists about the hypothesis of "global cooling" advanced early in the science's development. That's a denier propaganda myth.

And global warming and climate change are not different concepts; just different terms for different aspects of the problem. Fully stated, the description would be: "Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW.)"

I know that's a lot of big words for people who prefer to rely on sneers and snark but it's the same theory that has been gaining increased acceptance among bona fide scientists all around the world for 40 years. The fact that the consensus is stronger now than it was in the 70's is because more studies have been performed, and the data has increasingly validated the analysis.

The term "climate change" is used more often now because there are a lot of stupid people who think that if it's cooler today than it was yesterday that "proves that global warming is a hoax" Many of the predicted and realized consequences of AGW can be counter-intuitive - including localized increases in extremes of cold weather.

So let's be simple and straightforward: you don't understand climate science. You couldn't repeat the analysis, check the data, or otherwise personally verify or refute it. So you've decided to throw in your lot with the handful of gullible screwballs and a multitude of well-paid consultants working for fossil fuel interests and simply state that it's not true.

You repeat lots of focus-group tested soundbites which don't actually prove anything but sound plausible. You make accusations of fraud and science malfeasance without actual substance.

You slander those with whom you disagree, and accuse them of doing it to you.

Slick.


Posted by Newt Isaacs, a resident of another community,
on May 12, 2014 at 5:04 pm

@ Doug: please speak to Dan. He called me names.

Thanks.


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 12, 2014 at 6:17 pm

"The idea that while we can't accurately predict the weather next week or next month, we can, however, forecast what will happen in 40 years is absurd."

Doug,

I see this one floating around the internet from time to time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. No one is suggesting that we can predict the weather 40 years from now or even two months from now. Scientists are predicting averages and trends in the weather 40 years from now. Those predictions comes with error bars and confidence levels. Take a look at some of the summaries of either of the recent studies. There aren't weather predictions in there.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 12, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Yes John/Issac/Petter, we know they're attempting to predict the climate (not weather) 40 years from now. But when those models are used in the reverse (reflecting what happen in the past) they DON'T WORK!

What does it take to get you boneheads to understand that the models are incorrect and that those so-called experts have indeed been manipulating/falsifying data and excluding conflicting research?

Science indeed.

Dan


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on May 12, 2014 at 9:17 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Nothing in Peter Kluget's latest post is true, including his name.

Pointing out that facts about the climate have have turned the years of doom and gloom forecasts into lies is not slander. That would be like saying it was slanderous to say that the President Obama lied about his healthcare program. "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."

Did Al Gore predict that the arctic ice could disappear by 2013? Yes.

Has the US reduced carbon output to 1992 levels while China and India continue to add one new coal fired power plant each week? Yes. And so forth.

It is pointless to debate when one side refuses to accept factual statements made by the other. It is evidence of intolerance and desperation.


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 12, 2014 at 9:35 pm

" we know they're attempting to predict the climate (not weather)"

Then please, say that. Don't say "while we can't accurately predict the weather next week or next month, we can, however, forecast what will happen in 40 years" That says "weather", not "climate".

And if the models are "incorrect", please present models that are better or more accurate. Please present some evidence. Please point me to where the accurate climate science is taking place. Where are the studies that are getting it right in your opinion. I'm totally open to new ideas and new approaches to the data

What's the deal with the name calling?


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 12, 2014 at 9:40 pm

"It is pointless to debate when one side refuses to accept factual statements made by the other. "

Where is a "factual statement" that I've refused to accept? I didn't think I was taking a side. Did I sound that way? I agree there have been all sorts of doom and gloom predictions that all kinds of people on all kinds of subjects that have turned out to be wrong. Does that mean all climate science is nonsense and that we shouldn't study it?


Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on May 12, 2014 at 11:03 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

The climate models are suspect, the data has been manipulated and lied about, the concept has been renamed so often that fewer and fewer people believe in this anymore.

And while the US is doing a good job of reducing carbon output and pollutants, the rest of the world doesn't care. So, without their cooperation nothing will change.

The warmists need to focus their effort in China, India and Indonesia. Good luck with that.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 13, 2014 at 7:22 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

"And if the models are "incorrect", please present models that are better or more accurate."

Yeah sure John, I'll get right on that for you.

Go back up-thread and read the link I pasted. If you find any issues with Steve Macintyre or his writings/theories then bring it back to the board and lets discuss. Happy to have the debate.

Dan


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 13, 2014 at 7:22 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

"And if the models are "incorrect", please present models that are better or more accurate."

Yeah sure John, I'll get right on that for you.

Go back up-thread and read the link I pasted. If you find any issues with Steve Macintyre or his writings/theories then bring it back to the board and lets discuss. Happy to have the debate.

Dan


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm

"Debate". I didn't know I was taking a side. There is nothing to debate. I thought it was suggested that some scientists were using incorrect models and others were using correct models. I didn't see any links to the correct models. That is why I asked.


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm

"Debate". I didn't know I was taking a side. There is nothing to debate. I thought it was suggested that some scientists were using incorrect models and others were using correct models. I didn't see any links to the correct models. That is why I asked.


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Ahhh, I see...now you're arguing in circles.

Buh bye.

Dan


Posted by john, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 14, 2014 at 9:02 am

Arguing? Huh?


Posted by Formerly Dan from BC, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 14, 2014 at 10:56 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

This was too good not to look up:

Headline Source BBC: "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice."

Web Link

Here are a few excerpt's from this gem:

"The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
"There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

Anyone care to guess what has happened since this proclamation was made? Beuller...? <---movie reference.

LOL!

You just can't make this stuff up.

I also have a video of that idiot Al Gore citing these "scientists" when he made his proclamations but I'm sure the lurkers (and you know who you are) wouldn't dare want to touch that either.

Dan



LOL, too conservative? How about not accurate?



Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Lulu is back home!!!!
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 865 views

Measure BB could pay to connect Dublin Boulevard to Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 393 views

Wheels for Meals on Wheels
By John A. Barry | 0 comments | 127 views