Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
27,561 - 27,580 of 45,849 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29120
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not unusual for large scale companies to fail before they get into production.
Large scale companies? How do companies become "large scale" before they 'get into production'? That statement makes no sense whatsoever but that isn't unusual for you either.

Watching a couple of BILLION TAXPAYER dollars go down the drain for absolutely nothing in return is unusual. Well, at least it was unusual until this president got into office. It seems that obama and his minions have the "midas touch" for companies going bankrupt and taking taxpayer dollars with them. So far, the ones they have visited with much fanfare and rhetoric have failed MISERABLY. obama's "green energy" policty is THE living example of insanity. That being defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29121
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dementure Bozo wrote:
President Obama was President of the United States after President Bush.
You're good, really good!
Not many people know that.
OK, so, Obama "was" President, or is President?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29122
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

fishaholic wrote:
Large scale companies? How do companies become "large scale" before they 'get into production'? That statement makes no sense whatsoever but that isn't unusual for you either.
Be fair, the poor old chap doesn't seem to be quite with it today.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29123
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
More like, Supreme Leader or Dictator, not President. A president of the United States realizes there are co-equal branches of government for checks and balances of power. Obama seems to want to lie to the people about the functions of the Supreme Court.
That is really sad. Needless to say,un-American. Shame.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29124
Apr 4, 2012
 
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You're good, really good!
Not many people know that.
OK, so, Obama "was" President, or is President?
Just putting things in respectful terms, mirthling. President Obama was elected President after President Bush and is still the President of the United States. Hope that helps.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29125
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Obama, is there another one? Obama is the one that followed Bush. Your feigned respect is a little thin.
...and you, of course, agree with Joey that, "green aholes argue al gore is laughing and getting richer! how many of you people have looked into whos gotten rich from this hoax?if you dare to look into this you will also see that it leads back to obama?"

Hmm, the unanimous agreement of all the world's scientific authorities is really a conspiracy by the president and a previous Democratic Party nominee for president to enrich themselves? Sounds serious. Alert the John Birch Society at once.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29126
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Large scale companies? How do companies become "large scale" before they 'get into production'? That statement makes no sense whatsoever but that isn't unusual for you either.
Watching a couple of BILLION TAXPAYER dollars go down the drain for absolutely nothing in return is unusual. Well, at least it was unusual until this president got into office. It seems that obama and his minions have the "midas touch" for companies going bankrupt and taking taxpayer dollars with them. So far, the ones they have visited with much fanfare and rhetoric have failed MISERABLY. obama's "green energy" policty is THE living example of insanity. That being defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
I suppose it is all in how you define large scale. Perhaps this will explain why the government needs to support certain projects.
http://www.pehub.com/127238/bob-ackerman-it%E...

We see other countries building things like the Hadron Collider while the U.S. government-backed Superconducting Super Collider in Texas was scrapped. In a time when competition is getting fierce the US has had to take a back seat because of the unwillingness of the conservative mindset to finance prime research. Not only has the government lost ground in R&D, large American companies have also done so.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29127
Apr 4, 2012
 
Nutter Bozo wrote:
Just putting things in respectful terms, mirthling. President Obama was elected President after President Bush and is still the President of the United States. Hope that helps.
Yes, it helps me understand what a nutcase you are.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29128
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it helps me understand what a nutcase you are.
You certainly are hard-headed.

:<{)

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29129
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose it is all in how you define large scale. Perhaps this will explain why the government needs to support certain projects.
http://www.pehub.com/127238/bob-ackerman-it%E...
We see other countries building things like the Hadron Collider while the U.S. government-backed Superconducting Super Collider in Texas was scrapped. In a time when competition is getting fierce the US has had to take a back seat because of the unwillingness of the conservative mindset to finance prime research. Not only has the government lost ground in R&D, large American companies have also done so.
There is a difference in gov't funded R&D and pouring taxpayer money down a rat hole of companies on their way out anyway. These "green energy" companies are NOT R&D companies. What they are trying to make is NOT in the R&D stage. It is in the PRODUCTION stage and they are taking taxpayer money, making all kinds of pie in the sky promises - just before they go belly up. Just what has anyone, besides company execs, gotten in return for all this money invested? There is no scientific breakthrough from Solyndra, Ener 1, Tesla motors, Fisker motors, and all the others that have gone t!ts up with our money. However, there has been plenty of scientific breakthrough on gov't R&D projects. Didn't you see the headlines about NIF at LLNL last week? That's a huge difference between taxpayer funded R&D and some solar panel company getting funded only to go bankrupt. You just can't seem to get that through that thick, narrow minded skull of yours.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29130
Apr 4, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is really sad. Needless to say,un-American. Shame.
Please define un-American.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29131
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define un-American.
Un-American: Disloyal, unpatriotic and without respect for America and the office of the elected President of the United States.

I personally did not like President GW Bush and especially VP Dick Cheney, but I still respected them as the President and VP of the United States of America. I did not make derogatory statements about their character. I did not agree with going to war with Iraq and the loss of freedoms resulting from the reaction to 9/11. I did not agree with the wanton spending while fighting a war and the idiotic tax breaks that lead us into heavy debt. That along with the philosophy that political agenda over rode scientific findings. That along with deregulation that let our financial institutions loose to rape and plunder that finally lead to a collapse of the economy.
albedodown

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29133
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
... Obama "was" President, or is President?
"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" WAS, IS, & seems he WILL BE a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29135
Apr 4, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Un-American: Disloyal, unpatriotic and without respect for America and the office of the elected President of the United States.
I personally did not like President GW Bush and especially VP Dick Cheney, but I still respected them as the President and VP of the United States of America. I did not make derogatory statements about their character. I did not agree with going to war with Iraq and the loss of freedoms resulting from the reaction to 9/11. I did not agree with the wanton spending while fighting a war and the idiotic tax breaks that lead us into heavy debt. That along with the philosophy that political agenda over rode scientific findings. That along with deregulation that let our financial institutions loose to rape and plunder that finally lead to a collapse of the economy.
Is Obama showing respect for the Supreme Court when he lied about the Supreme Court's history? Is he showing respect for the American people when he lies to the people about the Supreme Court?
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29136
Apr 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that about the space program. The early space program was developed for national security threats from the soviets. As far as I know, the Chinese and Russians aren't going to attack us with solar panels or any other "green energy" weapon. As far as the Chinese gov't heavily subsidizing the solar companies, well, a country that has no debt to speak of can easily do that. When the US is in such a deep debt hole, it is fiscally irresponsible to dole out money to companies that go bankrupt - period.
Yet conservatives just doled out thirty times as much to banks and insurers, most of which were either bankrupt or on the verge of it. Yet you howl about chump change lost by solar panel manufacturers? Your political biases are showing...again.

Solar PVs are a brutal business due both to plummeting prices and to the Chinese government's recent decision to own the industry. Not so for the deregulated, bailed-out banks, which simply scammed and extorted the bejesus out of us, even getting taxes on the unemployed passed to fund bonuses for multi-millionaire bank CEOs who drove their companies into the ground. But you only care about screwing liberals, so I understand the prejudice.

Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29137
Apr 4, 2012
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose it is all in how you define large scale. Perhaps this will explain why the government needs to support certain projects.
http://www.pehub.com/127238/bob-ackerman-it%E...
We see other countries building things like the Hadron Collider while the U.S. government-backed Superconducting Super Collider in Texas was scrapped. In a time when competition is getting fierce the US has had to take a back seat because of the unwillingness of the conservative mindset to finance prime research. Not only has the government lost ground in R&D, large American companies have also done so.
Don't get me wrong - I agree there's a proper place for government-funded research, but the kind of muddy-minded thinking about it that's evidenced in Ackerman's piece and, frankly, your post are a major reason why it's such a shambles.

First - what I think he gets right: yes, the proper focus for government-sponsored research is two-fold: 1) basic research that doesn't have the near-term payback/profit potential to attract private investment capital, and 2) mission-oriented R&D that's central to some proper governmental function - e.g., military R&D.

And yes, he's right on in saying "the U.S. government ... should not make bets on individual companies ... it ... should not invest billions to make GM, Ford or Chrysler America’s alternative fuel vehicles champion. Instead, the government needs to invest in key broad technologies ..."

I think there probably is a valid argument for the US federal government investing in R&D as a strategic national aim to maintain US world leadership in science.

But here's where Ackerman and others get it wrong, I think - the notion that all private capital requires short-term payback, and ONLY government can and will fund basic research with long-term uncertain payoff is complete nonsense. The billions of patient private capital invested by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development over decades before market revenues start flowing, and the hundreds of billions in private research foundations and private academic institutional endowments that fund basic science research in the US stand as just two glaring examples of how silly the notion is that the US federal government is the ONLY, or even the most capable, sugar daddy prepared to fund basic science research in the US.

When government funds reseach, it still needs to be cost-effective, something government frankly sucks at. Outside of government mission-oriented (e.g., defense-related) R&D, the best results typically come when government provides basic research grants that _augment_ or leverage funding from private sources, for projects directed by somebody other than government. Because government has no capital budget, and funds everything out of an annual cash drawer, it is the worst imaginable party to be in charge of any long-term project involving large capital flows spanning several years, except as a last resort.

The SSC stands as a prime example. Clinton killed the SSC, and properly so, because it was a grossly mis-managed, hopeless train wreck. It was funded based on statements to Congress in 1987 it could be completed for $4.4 billion, and then a mere 6 years later the cost projections had ballooned to over $12 billion. Instead of being run by competent people, it was being run by DOE physicists who were utterly unqualified to be directing what had become a major civil engineering/public works boondoggle.

The SSC also had to be killed for the simple reason that the machines that were being built in Europe would deliver the same data at a fraction of the cost, because they had a better technical solution (magnet technology instead of massive civil works expense).

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29138
Apr 5, 2012
 
A complete Bozo wrote:
It is not unusual for large scale companies to fail before they get into production.
I'm sure you can provide a few examples to support that Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty comment?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29139
Apr 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Un-American: Disloyal, unpatriotic and without respect for America and the office of the elected President of the United States.
I personally did not like President GW Bush and especially VP Dick Cheney, but I still respected them as the President and VP of the United States of America. I did not make derogatory statements about their character. I did not agree with going to war with Iraq and the loss of freedoms resulting from the reaction to 9/11. I did not agree with the wanton spending while fighting a war and the idiotic tax breaks that lead us into heavy debt. That along with the philosophy that political agenda over rode scientific findings. That along with deregulation that let our financial institutions loose to rape and plunder that finally lead to a collapse of the economy.
With all due respect, Sir - respect for the office of POTUS is owed. Respect for the occupant is not. That must be earned.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29141
Apr 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Obama showing respect for the Supreme Court when he lied about the Supreme Court's history? Is he showing respect for the American people when he lies to the people about the Supreme Court?
The speed with which BOBO's Ministry of Truth found the reverse gear on that shocking gaffe by the Incompetent-in-Chief is truly impressive.

They're backing away from it like scalded cats:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/usa...

Jay Carney = Nathan Thurm: http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29142
Apr 5, 2012
 
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet conservatives just doled out thirty times as much to banks and insurers, most of which were either bankrupt or on the verge of it. Yet you howl about chump change lost by solar panel manufacturers? Your political biases are showing...again.
Solar PVs are a brutal business due both to plummeting prices and to the Chinese government's recent decision to own the industry. Not so for the deregulated, bailed-out banks, which simply scammed and extorted the bejesus out of us, even getting taxes on the unemployed passed to fund bonuses for multi-millionaire bank CEOs who drove their companies into the ground. But you only care about screwing liberals, so I understand the prejudice.
Bullcrap.

Conservatives howl with outrage over US government bailouts of Wall Street's gambling debts with taxpayer's money also.

So I trust you will be expressing your outrage in a practical and meaningful way by holding BOBO, the largest Wall Street Bailout Dispenser in US History, to account by voting his incompetent azz out in November, right? Or is this a case of the partisan political pot calling the kettle black?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Coconut Creek Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Coconut Creek People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Coconut Creek News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Coconut Creek
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••