truly amazing video

mac · Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:19 pm Post subject:

I have to admit I laughed out loud at Bard's angry, fact-lite, misspelled screed. Try some facts Bard: http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/15/u-s-state-energy-costs-who-pays-most-least/

There are lots of reasons for differing costs in energy and housing by state. Some have to do with climate, others with geographic realities, and others luck. The point remains, the incremental in energy cost, along with regulation, in California, is sufficient to decrease CO2 emissions without substantial adverse impact to the economy. I know it is not what Murdoch drills into you every day. I know it is not what you want to believe. If that is arrogant, I cop to it.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

coboardhead · Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303

The real issue is who and how the metrics are defined and weighted.

Based on my recent research of sushi prices...Baja 1, Calif 2, Arizona 3, Colo 4. So...the best place to live is Baja.

mac · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:47 am Post subject:

That sushi stuff isn't half bad if you grill it first. The second issue is, let's not have an adult discussion of what metrics matter, lets just take potshots from Virginia without suggesting constructive solutions. Sigh. Always one to pick a nit--and try to avoid the main point.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

Anyone who bothered to read the article would have seen the 7 key metrics that were used to develop the ranking. Most informed analysts would agree with their selection.

mac · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:38 pm Post subject:

Imagine my surprise at another snarky remark--"Anyone who bothered..."

Of course the snarkster did not summarize the argument that he now makes--that he believes that there are better metrics. Nor does it really address the argument that he is trying to divert attention from, because he has never really rebutted it. And you have to do some digging--something he rarely does--to find the 7 metrics and the conclusion by state.

So I'll accept for arguments purposes that California's economy, although bigger than many countries, is only the 11th best using these metrics. So what? It has nothing to do with the argument that I made--responding to climate change in modest ways does not materially affect the health of the economy.

If it makes you feel better, you can do a victory dance for you nitpick.