brenthutch

Duuude, (sounds of bong water bubbling) Yep that hayseed backwatter of inbred rednecks that voted for Obama and gay marriage.

Pointing out the bad behavior of others is not a defense of you own bad behavior. BTW I give credence to evolution or any other scientifically sound theory for that matter. On the other hand, I don’t believe in angels, devils, tooth fairies or agw.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/cargo-cult-climate-science At the center of the IPCC's problem is that they choose to believe a scientific theory that is based on incomplete understanding—that human generated CO2 is responsible for global warming. Not only has it become clear that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change but claim after claim, prediction after prediction made by the warmists has failed to come true—the planes don't land. AGW cultists waiting for some global warming to arrive. Like the cargo cultists, the AGW cult has confused cause and effect. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels do occur naturally as climate warms, but it has always been a result of the warming, a contributing factor, not the principal cause of the warming. There is no demonstrable reason for thinking that the human induced rise in atmospheric CO2 levels will cause a large, damaging rise in global temperatures. Still, much as the South Seas Islanders continue to build ersatz airfields and march about mimicking the actions of long departed solders and sailors, the anthropogenic global warming true believers continue to place all their faith in CO2, never stopping to think that they might have it wrong. They are not only misleading the public, they are misleading themselves.

In a global perspective anyone making over $20,000 per year is super rich. We should take away everything above $20k per year and distribute it to everyone else to make everything fair. If you don’t agree with me you are worse than Hitler.

That makes two of us.

Like my grandmother used to say....Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

From your very own LA Times http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/10/report-says-california-global-warming-law-will-cause-job-losses

I didnt claim they would be I said that they did.

But I never claimed 1000's of coal jobs would be created.

I have far too much respect for your intellect to think that for one second that you actually believe any thing you are talking about.

Yes it is funny. But when you really think about it, it is not funny, It is sad.

20,000 jobs producing 1/5 of their power. Lets say we ramp that up to 100. Even if you were to ignore economies of scale and 100% of their power was from wind, those jobs would employ fewer that 2% of their population. This hardly seems like a green jobs revolution, especially when you take away the estimated 160,000+ jobs lost and the fact that non green jobs pay more that the green ones. The economics just don’t make sense.

Although I do have a bit of a reservation when I read that Denmark and Germany have installed over 20,000 wind turbines and have not closed a single coal fired power plant. Irony alert! (Germany said that this was because of the unusually cold winters they have been having in recent years)

Those billions then went right back to the taxpayer in the form of solar installations. And since solar systems last 30 years or so, they will keep giving back to the taxpayer. And reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. And make California cleaner. That's on top of all those jobs it created, of course." So we could spend a trillion dollars on green jobs and it would not cost us a cent because we wiould get it all back? If it is that simple, sign me up. No down side to green jobs? No oppertunity cost? I am going to change the bumper sticker from drill baby drill to (wind) mill baby mill.

Sometimes called externalities. Wind is not without its own. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39941-2004Dec31_3.html The large scale slaughter of bats could do harm to organic farmers who depend on them to control insects.

50,000+ green jobs gained in CA at a cost of billions to the tax payer. (not sure you notices but your state is going bankrupt) 50,000 non-green jobs created in PA at a net gain for the tax payer. More: As mentioned, Spain has likely destroyed more jobs than it has created with its extensive subsidies for wind and solar. Its unemployment rate, nearly 19 percent, is double that of the U.S. and does not suggest that green jobs can create prosperity. In Denmark, each wind energy job has cost $90,000 to $140,000 in subsidies, which is more than the jobs pay.[6] In Germany, the figure is as high as $240,000.[7] And the experience in Spain, Denmark, and Germany is that most of the green jobs created are temporary ones http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm2795.cfm

Wow, dont stop there. Just think of how many jobs we could creat if we got rid of everything

The problem is that you are presupposing that those job would not be created by investments in non green areas. This thinking is folly. For example. I live in PA and we have created over 50,000 non green jobs with shale gas production. Far more that any "green jobs". You only look at the up side to green jobs, it is also important to consider opportunity costs. Just think, how many disenfranchised people could we have put through college with the money we wasted on corn ethanol? (not to mention the thousands who died around the globe from higher food costs)

1. It fails to address jobs created in the energy effieiency sector. Since we know that every dollar spent on energy effieciency saves you $3- $5 on renewable energy generation (for PV), this is a BIG hit on the study's credibility. Please expound.

Here is a link to a PDF of the study. Not by some right wing jerk off mind you, but a high minded group of European academics http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf Here is just one of the 24 points critical of Spain's Green Jobs experience" "Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created."

The Berkley report was what was SUPOSED to happen, in the real world this is what did happen: "Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs."

Pot smoking democrate from CA, nuf said.

Sorry Bill, the thread is my thread about how green jobs are a myth, and have been proven to be so by the nations that have advocated for them. It is not about my horrible spelling. The discourse goes as follows: Me: I read in the WSJ that 2+2=4 K******: The WSG are a bunch of fascist Nazis Me: well that may be, but can you discuss my point that 2+2 may equal 4 K******: You cant even use correct punctuation, you are below contempt and do not deserve a response. Me: Yes I am an idiot, but can we get bact to the point of my post?

You must be tenured.

really? "Kalland, Bill, Amazon?? Nothing to say? "