“I do not expect that you would take my question seriously because it poses an intellectual challenge. In other words, you’d have to debate me on specifics.”

Subtle insults aside, I am challenging the premise on which your argument is built, which is that subsidies for green energy caused the global economy collapse. I fundamentally disagree with this premise, and reject the conclusion that you’ve reached, which is that pursuing sustainable technologies is harmful to the economy and not worthwhile.

Reading through the articles you’ve posted, I also don’t see a connection. The first line of the Finance Markets article pretty explicitly says where Spain’s current recession comes from:

“Official figures have revealed that Spain’s unemployment rate has reached 19.3% (one of the highest of any European region) as the economy has been hit by a severe slump within the construction industry, which has led to a significant amount of job losses.”

That sounds a lot like what’s happening, well….. Everywhere. Specifically, places like Arizona and California whose economies relied heavily on construction, which were annihilated when the credit industry took a nosedive. In other words, not only is this recession happening in places like Spain and California that have provided subsidies for renewable energy, but places that have not, such as Arizona and… Latvia? I mention Latvia because of this line from the Finance Markets article:

“However, Spain’s unemployment rate is slightly below the 19.7% rate recorded for Latvia.”

I looked around, and found this: “Latvia Is Shaken by Riots Over Its Weak Economy”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/world/europe/15latvia.html?_r=2

Now, it does not appear that Latvia has put in huge, Spain-sized subsidies for wind and solar energy development (they have explored some wind options, but that comes in at about one percent of their national energy production, and it looks like that was about ten years ago).

They’ve also had riots because their economy is so bad.

I feel like maybe I should connect the two and say that the reason Spain has not had riots over their economy is because they invested in solar energy, but that would be silly.

So, you see? I don’t accept the premise your argument is based on, which is that jumpstarting private sector sustainable energy endeavors by subsidizing wind and solar energy is responsible for killing the economy.

Now, going back to the first thing you wrote in your reply:

“It is far easier for me to prove to you that green energy bares responsibility for hurting Caleefornia and Spain’s economies than your assertion that non green energy will turn earth in to a hot waterless rock.”

Ok, here is what makes me believe that current methods of energy production are going to turn the earth into a hot waterless rock. First, let’s here what the experts say: “Surveyed Scientists agree global warming is real”

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

“However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Wow, that sounds pretty serious. But, what does that mean, human activity significantly contributing to changing mean global temperatures, in the long run?

This is where we have to remember ancient history—specifically, the 1990’s—because back then there was a new-fangled phrase, “the Greenhouse effect.” I remember being a kid back then, so I was concerned about it in a way that kids are, that it’s something bad grown-ups say but I don’t really know what it is except that I don’t want it.

But now that I’m not a kid anymore, “the Greenhouse effect” sounds much worse than being beaten up on the playground again. It’s actually so much worse than we realized that the name was changed to something else, “runaway” or “abrupt climate change:”

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282

“This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide.”

Ok, wow, so I might have been mistaken in the hot, waterless rock comment. I actually hope I am, and this guy pretty much says so:

“[there] is no possibility of [Venus's] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth”
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/6/R02/

Now if I were a stubborn person, I could say, no way, John Houghton is wrong, he only cares about getting published, I must be right, it must be true that in fact a runaway greenhouse effect will happen on Earth and turn it into a hot waterless rock, because I say so.

But that would be silly. This guy is a scientist. He knows what he’s talking about. Me, I’m just a guy who wouldn’t tell my doctor to shut up because I believe the reason my arm hurts is because I have a cold and he tells me that my arm is actually broken.

Don’t get your hopes up, though, about Houghton not believing in global climate change though. From the link to the abstract page I provided, he says very explicitly, “Because of the need for urgent action, the greatest challenge is to move rapidly to much increased energy efficiency and to non-fossil-fuel energy sources.”

So what’s likely to happen if we don’t take urgent action to stem the tide of global climate change?

“Increased drought, crop failure, disease, extreme weather events and sea level rise are all likely to fall much more heavily on struggling populations in Africa, Asia and South America than on the rich industrial societies of Europe, North America and Australia – who have done most to cause global warming through greenhouse gas emissions in the past, and who are best able to afford counter-measures to limit its consequences.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-worst-effects-of-climate-change-will-be-felt-by-the-poorest-443669.html

Wow, that sounds pretty messed up. Still, who cares, really, if we get some bad weather in parts of the world that don’t have any oil?

“From the crests of the Cascades to Puget Sound, people in the Pacific Northwest can expect to experience changes driven by global warming.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/264200_northwest24.html

“The news isn’t all bad. Maybe you won’t have to chain up going over Snoqualmie Pass as often. It won’t be as cold, on average, in the winter. In many years, you will be able to get away with starting your spring garden earlier.”

Oh, that’s good. So what are the bad things again?

“Expect more winter flooding, more summer water shortages, more destructive wildfires and more troubled salmon runs. And, on average, shorter ski seasons.”

Shorter ski seasons??? Dang, I would totally brave flooded bridges, burning forests, a parched throat, and, er, no salmon for dinner, but shorter ski seasons somewhere in America is where I draw the line.

At least I have time to prepare.

“This is the forecast from climate experts studying likely effects here. In fact, these changes already are happening.”

Oh.

But that’s in the Pacific Northwest. They deserve it for foisting Starbucks and grunge on the rest of us.
But what about the rest of us? Will we be plaid and grande latte free?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

“There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.”

“Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.”

So if global climate change is abrupt, if it reaches this tipping point described in this article, http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.long , plants and animals will die off, and coastal cities will be flooded. Importantly, the IPCC report states that this was likely to happen with the current rate of carbon we’re dumping into the atmosphere and changing the planet’s climate with, but that rate is increasing, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061130190831.htm , meaning we’re running the risk of hitting on of those tipping points.

So. To go all the way back to what you said to start this off:

“I always ask liberals one question that they cannot answer. I will present it now. Give me examples of your ideas working. Show me a track record of success. Prove me wrong.”

What would qualify as an example of our ideas “working”— Now that I look back on your question it seems almost nonsensical. Do you want proof that we use photovoltaic cells and mirrored dishes concentrating sunlight to spin a turbine to create electricity? Because it does.

Or do you want us, us silly liberals, to launch wide-scale sustainable energy projects? Because that’s what we’re trying to do. We know that these can work based on smaller-scale projects, which is all we have right now. To show you how little is put in to sustainable energy, let’s look at all energy consumed in 2006, 15.8 terawatts. The amount of that energy from wind, solar, etc? 0.15 terawatts. Courtesy of a table from the department of energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls

So, to answer your demand, we know that ideas about sustainable energy production work. We are working on a track record of success. Part of that, because we’re talking about such a huge industry, requires public investment.

We are going to prove you wrong.
And it will be worth it, not because I want you to be wrong, but because I don’t want to live in a world changed by our own stubbornness.

It is far easier for me to prove to you that green energy bares responsibility for hurting Caleefornia and Spain’s economies than your assertion that non green energy will turn earth in to a hot waterless rock.

I noticed that you failed to take me up on my challenge, but liberals never do.

Caleefornia ruled by a Rino guvenor and a Democratic legislature, actually is so mismanaged that I admit green energy is just a part of a liberal basket case economy. Caleefornians have had to over pay for energy, first because of their idiotic deregulation of electricity during the Davis administration. Now they over pay to subsidize inefficient wind farms. High cost of power is a major factor in economic trouble.

As far as Spain, I offer the following articles.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193815050081615.html

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/11/03/spain%E2%80%99s-unemployment-rate-spirals-to-193/

While neither article specifies that green energy crashed Spain’s economy, I infer it if you link both articles. It certainly disproves the liberal Holy Grail of green collar jobs.

I do not expect that you would take my question seriously because it poses an intellectual challenge. In other words, you’d have to debate me on specifics.

That I would post a reply taking an opposing view of your post should not surprise you. I oppose solar strictly on economic grounds. I was around in the 1970s and saw the failed promises of green energy back then. The technology is better, but it still has to be subsidized.

I always ask liberals one question that they cannot answer. I will present it now. Give me examples of your ideas working. Show me a track record of success. Prove me wrong.

Here are my examples of green economy failure. In the US, is there a greener state than California? Yet that state has a higher unemployment rate than the national average. Where are all of the green jobs?

Then there is my favorite, Spain. They were the most solar friendly country in Europe, maybe the world. What happened? The subsidies needed to support their solar dreams has crashed their economy.

Again, show me where I am in error. Show me somewhere on planet earth where solar or wind has worked on a large scale.

(sorry Dana didn’t succeed)