January 2007 -January 2008 Largest 1-year Climate Change in History

RM95, you're just firing off sheet hoping something sticks. This didn't stick.

BHU's economic plan has a core pillar being green jobs. He's been trumpeting this to all his drone voters who like his voice and parrot him without thinking. McCain's economic plan is built on much more. Big difference.

Poor effort. pls do better

 

Citation please.

 

Link? (Any link would be good. One not funded by Exxon would be better.)

 

Actually, "green jobs" are attracting a TON of venture capital as well as some of the best and the brightest who until recently have been in positions in technology companies. Environmental tech is poised to be the biggest growth industry in the world and I would like for the United States to be at the forefront of the trend.

http://www.news.com/Tech-vets-making-leap-to-green-tech/2100-11395_3-6187010.html?tag=st.num

I guess you would prefer that America remain mired in an old economy, eh?

 

First off, never start a response to me with the word "actually". That implies that you might know something that I don't. Not likely.

I'm extremely knowledgeable about both VC (that stands for venture capital) and green jobs. If a "TON" of money (is that a ton of $1 bills, or a ton of benjamins? How much money is in a "TON"?) is flowing into green tech already, why should be government put money towards it? Seems like it's already getting a "TON" of money.

America is by far the leader in VC, and we could well lead the world in this industry as well without large government spending programs like BHU is suggesting. (cue irrelevant Bush references from the libpigs)

 

no, no, my friend, you have it all wrong, tracking climate change is like the stock market - all you have to do is have a few good rallies and you can erase your previous losses! Sell now!

 

moon, what's sad is that the basis for your economic education comes from democratic stump speech applause lines.

Go tell a coal miner's family about green jobs and see what you get back. Go tell a roustabout's family about green jobs and see what you get back. There is much much more to the energy industry than fat cats in tall offices. There are HUGE increases in consumers' electric bills involved in the 'global warming' movement. Go tell grandma on social security that she can't make ends meet because your democrat legislator prefers 'green jobs' to affordable energy. You go do that, moon.

Green jobs is an applause line being trumpeted by Hillary and Obama -- two of the worst demagogues and ideologues this nation has ever seen. Their policies are very dangerous to our nation's economic health.

 

we all know these are the type of people you care about given your comments about your attendance at the clinton speech. man you are something else. really, its entertaining keep it up.

 

Fixed.

 

Based on your derisive comment about Obama having a green jobs "pillar" in his campaign platform, you seemed completely oblivious to the coming explosion of green technologies and jobs. Display less seeming ignorance and I will not have to start a response to you with the word "actually."

Ignoring the inane references to my obvious rhetorical device (the "ton" you speak of), as you would know if you did any research or knew anything about government spending on R&D, government funding tends to accelerate the pace at which technological advancements are available for anyone to use.

The fact that VC (see, I can use acronyms too and I don't feel the need to explain to the person who used the term in the first place that my usage is an acronym) is flowing to green technology firms is a great thing, but those technologies will remain locked up inside those firms' in the form of IP and patents, reducing their benefit to the public at large as those firms will look to make a large profit, as they should.

Government spending on these technologies will help to spur research and development outside of the government and education sectors and will give entrepreneurs technologies that they can use to create their own businesses and develop their own technological advances. That is how it worked for the telecommunications industry, as government funding in the 1930s as well as ARPA funding were instrumental in the development of Silicon Valley. Similarly, the entire aerospace industry was created out of whole cloth by government funding of NASA.

Actually, the initials are BHO, not BHU, brah.

If we take on the government spending on green technology, we WILL lead the world in this industry, but I guess you are OK with "could well." If a new economy is to emerge, America needs to be on the forefront, and government spending on R&D is one important component in assuring that we are not left behind.

 

Well, that and the classes I have taken in money and banking, business finance, etc. The difference between you and I appears to be the fact that I have the ability to comprehend the written word where you only parrot talking points.

RAWK, Obama's middle name is Hussein, RAWK

Go tell the buggy whip maker that he won't be able to feed his family because of Ford's irresponsible actions. Go tell the employees of the Conestoga Wagon factory that they need to hit the unemployment rolls because this stupid fad called the locomotive is here. Better yet, explain to folks in 50 years why we didn't develop oil-independent technologies BEFORE the oil ran out because we were too short sighted and cheap to make it happen. You go do that, moron.

Green jobs are the future of this and every other country. When the oil runs out, the country that has invested the most to develop green technologies will be the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. I would like for that to be America, but apparently, you don't have a patriotic bone in your body, save the one I just shoved up your a$$.

 

Even without Global Warming, increased carbon emissions have led to acidification of the seas. This could devastate our food supply if we don't look more closely to it.

A coal miner's family would probably welcome training to work at a higher paying recycling factory than rotting away with poor work conditions.

 

It depends on how you calculate the standard deviation. If you lump all global annual averages together and come up with a standard deviation, it will of cause be huge, exactly because the temperature has significantly increased and is still increasing. Before the perceived temperature increase stabilizes, standard deviation is not the proper statistic tool to tell the difference.

 

This is terrible news because warming>cooling. More sun = more perfectly tanned hunnies. Coupled w/ the Yao news, I am very depressed now.

 

What is the point of this statement? Are you saying the data does not align, or that the change is negligible?

Rest of what effect?