|
Quote:
Lets fall further behind China and now Germany in investing in clean energy technology. http://content.usatoday.com/communit...clean-energy/1 Very forwarding thinking if we want to remain competitive in a global economy. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Where are YOUR numbers? Where is YOUR proof? Liar, Liar, pants on fire. Does that work? Is that how I win an argument with you? That is certainly how you are trying to convince me otherwise. I post 900 papers, quote numbers from 3 of them, give links to a large amount of website summarizing them so you DON'T have to read through all 900 pages and yet you keep repeating over and over, "show me the numbers or you are just lying." I gave you NINE HUNDRED PAGES of numbers. Where are your numbers? |
Quote:
An honest Coign would easily cite numbers from ten of those 117 papers. Apparently Coign did not read or understand any of those papers. So again Coign using infantile behavior to avoid what is obvious. The obvious: Coign was lying to everyone in the Cellar. Of course, Coign could repair his integrity. He could post numbers from ten papers that prove global warming does not exist. If Coign really was honest, he would have done that. After all, an honest Coign would have read all 117 papers before recommending them. Only brainwash disciples would boorishly recite political rhetoric. Coign could easily quote numbers from ten papers ... if Coign was being honest. Much harder is to post those numbers when 117 papers were not read and do not say what he claims. |
Quote:
|
Jobs from clean energy was a theme in the Obama 08 campaign. It was one thing I thought was ridiculous. Jobs just aren't created that way. When O's green jobs czar got ousted, they didn't replace him, I believe.
|
Quote:
|
Innovation drives the economic engine in a global economy, unless you want the US to rely on a service-based economy.
And innovation requires investment in R&D as well as seed funding to move from research to application, unless we dont want to compete with the rest of the world. |
Quote:
Let's take a look at how many jobs were created with the supposed Stimulus to get those "Shovel Ready Jobs" going in the Green Sector of the economy and how much we spent to make those jobs: http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/agencie...newable-energy |
I dont know to further address your myopic thinking based on anectdotal examples.
If we dont invest in R&D and innovation, we lose to the rest of the world. Period. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As I said, the option is a service based (low wage) econony or an export economy based on producing and supplying last year's products. |
Quote:
Why bullshit so hard, man? Why is that your first instinct? I'm here calling you on bullshit and you defend your bullshit with more bullshit. |
Quote:
Start with Thomas Jefferson and govt support for agricultural technology of the time. Then the govt role in the trans-continental railroads, followed by investments in automation and other early 20th century technologies. Continuing with the de facto govt subsidy of IBM for years to get the compuer industry off the ground. And the hugh govt investment in creating and funding the Internet infrastructure. But please refute it. |
Quote:
Yes, many of the most ignorant people - ie Carly Fiorina - use innovation as a magic word because she never understood it. Meanwhile she routinely stifled innovation. Her actions were the bullshit. Innovation was not the bullshit. A person who subverted innovation due to business school indoctrination was the bullshit. None of that soundbyte spin contradicts what he has posted. The question is whether the technology is fundamentally possible. The same soundbyte was used to promote a technology that science so obviously said could not work - hydrogen powered cars. Only those who have the longest history of stifling innovation (George Jr, Rick Wagoner) promoted that nonsense. It does not say innovation is bad. It only says a scientifically illiterate liar who promotes innovation is an enemy of mankind. Innovation is the only solution to our economic problems. Innovation drives economic success. Your question should be which technologies do or do not make sense. That means challenging him at the science level - details and numbers. Not at the soundbyte or cheapshot accusation level. |
Quote:
Much the same argument was made about the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulatory programs of the 1970s – it will be too burdensome on businesses; it will cost too much and jobs will be lost and the economy will be crippled. And that was the bullshit, much like you are spreading now. What we learned from the environmental regulatory programs of the 1970 was that they helped grow the economy in a forward thinking manner, spurring investments in design, manufacturing, installation and operation of new pollution-reducing technologies. And those technologies, developed in the US with support from govt R&D and govt subsidies made the US the world leader in anti-pollution technologies and generated a $multi- billion export economy for US companies that still plays a significant role in the US trade balance. If we dont act soon and more decisively , we will effectively give the clean energy technologies future, from battery technology to nanotechnology applications for renewables to China, the EU, Israel, India and it will be companies in those countries that will replace the 1970s US companies as environmental technology leaders. OR we can just "Drill Baby, Drill" |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.