“Um Alan, that’s actually your job. No major technological, infrastructural, or social development has ever gotten off the ground without a massive infusion of government money. Everything from the Interstate Highway to the Internet to nuclear power to organ transplants required heavy government investment.”

Very clever. State a partial truth and change the conclusion.

Let’s look at the internet. Yes it came out of a government program, but then private industry saw the PROFIT potential and developed it.

It was not forever SUBSIDIZED by MY tax dollars.

Organ transplants I don’t know enough about to argue, but I’m sure you are wrong, just cause you’re you.

Nuclear power is a strange one for you to argue, since it ain’t GREEN.

Now how about the interstate system. The government subsidized it, built it to help the trucking and car industry, and incidentally the oil industry. Great job, except it totally ruined the railroads, killed rail passenger service. All the things you greenies hate.

So what did the government do after they killed passenger rail service. They created AMTRAK, a permanent taxpayer ward of the state.

Alan: go ahead. Let’s see you connect everything from the Lincoln assassination, the Patriots cheating, and that one time when you stubbed your toe when you were frolicking in a field of conservative hopes and dreams to green energy and progressive politics.

By worked, I mean with out massive gov. subsidies. YOU CAN”T

Um Alan, that’s actually your job. No major technological, infrastructural, or social development has ever gotten off the ground without a massive infusion of government money. Everything from the Interstate Highway to the Internet to nuclear power to organ transplants required heavy government investment. You apparently have no compunction about subsidizing oil and nuclear companies with your tax dollars. And look, it’s not like you don’t have a model of a libertarian paradise on earth right now. Somalia has a failed government, no taxes, no regulations, and no gun laws. How many innovations are coming out of there?

Thank you for telling me what I was missing. Now I know why I did not answer you. You wrote a long rambling monstrosity. I am bored to tears trying to read it.

I will focus on the parts that interest me, because reading your stuff makes my short attention span even worse than normal.

First off, “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.”

You lemmings have failed since the 1970s to produce a track record of success. Besides, always saying “prove me wrong”, I say show me anywhere in the world where what you believe has worked.

By worked, I mean with out massive gov. subsidies. YOU CAN”T!

“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”

OK, I make a concession here, just to be sincere in what I say. Subsidies for green energy did not by themselves cause the current collapse. They had a lot of help from other progressive stupidity.

You brought up the construction industry. Besides the Bush tax cuts and Wall St. greed, what was at the heart of putting the housing market on steroids?

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, Barney Fwank, and Christopher Dodd will all go down in infamy. These entities and clowns bankrupted MY COUNTRY so that they could pretend to help the poor and down trodden afford mansions.

All they helped were the house flippers who got out early.

As far as comparing Spain to Latvia, I know nothing of Latvia and don’t see the relevance. Why not compare it to something of relative size like Caleefornia, where the rino is Guvenator.

You liberals never see the down side of taxes or subsidies. Your Karl Marx school of economics has no concept of definitions like return on capital.

When you over tax productive industries to subsidize inefficient green crap, you only make the mess already created by the housing collapse even worse.

When you compare high tax and high green subsidy places like Spain and California to surrounding areas, which is fair, you generally find them to in far worse shape.

Sorry not to answer your whole comment, but I’ve ranted far too long already. One last shot across the bow though. While you and the rest of the green crowd try to prove me wrong, you will certainly destroy what is left of my country.

Ok, just because you don’t seem to get it, before moving on to the rest of your reply I’m going to start with what you put at the bottom:

“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.

”
I’m ridiculing you because you haven’t responded at all to the response I gave you, ”

I have reread the thread and I do not know what you mean. Perhaps it’s my dyslexia. So please restate your question.

I’m ridiculing you because you haven’t responded at all to the response I gave you, which is the post this comment thread is now on, when you yourself said, as you just now quoted, “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.”

You so far have not met my response in any way, aside from repeating yourself and trying to misdirect the conversation.

How is this for not repeating myself? President Obama is backing a postponement of a climate deal. It seems saving the Earth does not have top priority. I just do not understand it.

Another inconvenient fact which you cannot dispute, explain, or even acknowledge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/obama-copenhagen-emissions-targets-climate-change

“Someone better hit Stop, take Alan out of the CD player, and clean him off a little bit, it was kind of amusing to see him repeat himself and skip around a bit but now it’s just annoying.”

Of course I repeat myself, I’m stating and restating facts and arguments which you have failed to refute. I’ve noticed that when you do not have an argument, you merely assume your drop back position, ridicule. To repeat myself.

“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.”

You are just like your hero President Barak Hussein Obama, neither of you can handle a detailed discussion.