Global warming?

[BigV]

Wow. This is so obviously false that I hardly have to post to refute it.

Why bullshit so hard, man? Why is that your first instinct? I'm here calling you on bullshit and you defend your bullshit with more bullshit.

UT, your quarrel with him is his use of the word "Every"? Ok, subtract that, or substitute "many" or "most" or "lots of" or "significant" or "none" or "Papa Smurf"...

It's less productive to get stuck on rhetorical flourishes/deliberate lying/jesus can't we all get along /rodney king than it is to cut some slack for language and stick to the point.

Official score:

UT -- 1 / FB -- 0

The use of "Every" was wrong. Play on.

[Fair&Balanced]

I agreed and acknowledged that using the word "every" was incorrect.

But I guess the chracterization of "bullshit" beyond that is in the eyes of the beholder.

Honestly, I am constantly amused at the over reaction by some on the right in so many discussions here.

But I guess thats life in the Cellar.

[tw]

I need not listen to talk radio. I simply read here what Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity have told us to believe.

The entire substance of multiple hour talk shows can be learned in the one soundbyte posted here.

117 papers proved global warming does not exist. That was the entire claim. Nothing in those papers proved it. Does not matter. Extremists only memorize soundbytes. Interesting to hear what extremist talk show audiences remember most. Only one number remembered - 117.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I agreed and acknowledged that using the word "every" was incorrect.

I have a suspicion that you'd even be incorrect to use "most".

The government has occasionally aided and abetted innovation. But that's because "A fool must now and then be right, by chance." (William Cowper)

All arguments of these sort are disagreements as to the role of government. Personally, I don't want to depend on government for innovation.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

I have a suspicion that you'd even be incorrect to use "most".

The government has occasionally aided and abetted innovation. But that's because "A fool must now and then be right, by chance." (William Cowper)

All arguments of these sort are disagreements as to the role of government. Personally, I don't want to depend on government for innovation.

I would disagree. The government role in R&D has been more than occasionally aiding and abetting.

As I noted earlier, it started with the law in the 1860s that established land grant colleges in every state to focus in part on promoting industrialization. It grew in the earlier 20th century with the establishment of the National Bureau of Standards and the National Research Council. And from post WW II through the peak of the space age (1970s), the government spent more on R&D than the private sector.

My position is that because we are now investing less than the governments of other industrialized countries we are falling behind and will be buying future technologies, from next generation car batteries to clean energy technologies, from foreign companies.

I also think the idea of depending on government for innovation misses the point. Government funds the foundation (where the cost outweighs any short term direct benefits) so that the private sector can build on that foundation and innovate.

Without the foundation, innovation will not occur as rapidly. And that is how we fall behind other industrialized countries in a global economy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

All arguments of these sort are disagreements as to the role of government. Personally, I don't want to depend on government for innovation.

Pete, it isn't a public versus private sector competition when it comes to innovation. You cannot just generalized "alternative energy should be produced from the private (or public) sector due to (insert argument that backs up your claim)." That isn't how it works. Most of the large issues that science faces today are so complex and research is so expensive that the public and private sector must work together in order to solve them. Here is a simplified example of how innovation works nowadays:

Professor 1 gets government funding and comes up with some device that successfully manipulates flowing water into energy. This device is extremely expensive and would be extremely difficult to scale to size needed to actually power a grid. This device currently will not make money so the private companies stay away from it. Professor 2 gets more government funding and comes up with a way to scale the device into the size that can be used to power a grid. Company 1, who has been following the progress of the device all along, now begins to research a way to make the device cheaper and more efficient, with the help of professor 1 and 2. Now that this device is an economically viable option, it gets built and further research is done in both the public and private sectors to make the device even better.

Was this innovation a result of the public or private sector? The answer is neither. If it was solely up to the public or private sector this device would never be made (in a way that could be used). It was the combination of the two that allowed it to be successful.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I also think the idea of depending on government for innovation misses the point. Government funds the foundation (where the cost outweighs any short term direct benefits) so that the private sector can build on that foundation and innovate.

Without the foundation, innovation will not occur as rapidly. And that is how we fall behind other industrialized countries in a global economy.

Yup. Government funding gives institutions the chance to develop all sorts of different theories and technologies that companies sort through to find something that they can use.

[Fair&Balanced]

The American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences has a brief report on the subject.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/presentat...rcanada908.pdf

Today, R&D funding is 1/3 government and 2/3 private, with the government spending in current dollars relatively flat for the last 30+ years. (see chart on page 5).

The report concludes: Current policy concerns
- Despite large industry investments in R&D, U.S. policymakers are concerned about the state of U.S. innovation and competitiveness.

- U.S. R&D/GDP ratio and other indicators are steady or declining, while other nations are growing (esp. Asian nations) -- (chart on page 7)

IMO, that is a bad trend for our long term economic competitiveness.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences has a brief report on the subject.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/presentat...rcanada908.pdf

Today, R&D funding is 1/3 government and 2/3 private, with the government spending in current dollars relatively flat for the last 30+ years. (see chart on page 5).

The report concludes: Current policy concerns
- Despite large industry investments in R&D, U.S. policymakers are concerned about the state of U.S. innovation and competitiveness.

- U.S. R&D/GDP ratio and other indicators are steady or declining, while other nations are growing (esp. Asian nations) -- (chart on page 7)

IMO, that is a bad trend for our long term economic competitiveness.

Typical Progressive response. Tax, Spend, and throw money at it! That will solve all our problems!

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Typical Progressive response. Tax, Spend, and throw money at it! That will solve all our problems!

Hardly a progressive response given that the US govt has been investing in R&D at a significant level since the 1950s, only leveling off in the Bush years to pay for a war and tax cuts that primarily benefit the top taxpayers.

You can ignore the economic impact, but that wont change the fact that in a global economy, if we dont invest, we dont compete on a level playing field.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Hardly a progressive response given that the US govt has been investing in R&D at a significant level since the 1950s, only leveling off in the Bush years to pay for a war and tax cuts that primarily benefit the top taxpayers.

You can ignore the economic impact, but that wont change the fact that in a global economy, if we dont invest, we dont compete on a level playing field.

Sort of like the ponzi scheme of Cap and Trade? Rigggghttttt......

[Undertoad]

I have written a comprehensive reply, and anyone interested in substance over sniping can ask me for the URL for it via PM.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I have written a comprehensive reply, and anyone interested in substance over sniping can ask me for the URL for it via PM.

Meaning no disrespect, but why not discuss it publicly?

I dont think it would be sniping to ask you to explain this further:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...Even by the 50s, government involvement in R&D was so unlikely that the March of Dimes was actually founded by FDR, but remained 100% privately funded as it solved the problem of Polio. Not one of those dimes came from government. They came from people giving dimes. That's just how it was.

Given that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the federal government funded more than 50% of R&D annually.



I think that is substantive and not sniping as is the fact that the total US R&D as percent of GDP has been flat for the last 20 years while Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany and even China (starting very far behind) are all increasing R&D spending as percent of GDP.

[infinite monkey]

Hey ut sorry about earlier. I don't feel well and I'm grumpy.

[sexobon]

The ensemble is complete:

piercehawkeye45 ___ Snow White
tw _______________ Queen
Spexxvet _________ Huntsman
xoxoxoBruce _______ Prince

Coign _____________ Dopey
Fair&Balanced ______ Happy
TheMercenary ______ Doc
BigV ______________ Sneezy
Pete Zicato ________ Sleepy
Undertoad _________ Bashful

and introducing:

infinite monkey _____ Grumpy

[Fair&Balanced]

Don't Worry, Be Happy