Global warming?

[Fair&Balanced]

Thank you, US Government's NCSA. for investing in the creation of the first web browser:



But its bullshit that government investment in innovation pays off in hugh private sector dividends.

[Undertoad]

It's easy to refute; see that word "Every" at the front of the sentence? All I need to do is point to one counter-example invention that didn't include Govt R&D. I'll pick radio. Q.E. Fuckin' D.

But if we treat the statement as a generalization, and not a supposition, I'll refute it with other generalizations.

The biggest one is that government, as an entity, had no involvement in R&D until the last few decades.

Really? Yeah. Government was positively tiny during the industrial revolution. In today's world it is hard to imagine *anything* happening without government involvement. But that was not always the case! Let's go to the chart:



This chart presents government spending as a percentage of GDP. This explains why Edison didn't get any government grants. Alexander Graham Bell, no fed funding. Henry Ford? You know the answer.

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.

"B-b-but the Internet!" ...which sat around not doing much for decades, until it opened to private interests, at which time it blossomed with the light of a thousand suns. Google get government funding? They did not, and the privately-educated Montessori kids who invented it are in the process of fighting government involvement tooth and nail.

Can the government innovate? In the late 70s and 80s it founded the Department of Energy, and was suddenly spending big bucks funding alternative fuels, in the search to replace gasoline. How'd that go? Well two generations later, we've replaced 10% of gas with a more expensive alternative in order to get political support from the farmers. Good goin'!

I do love how two of your examples are providing a competitive advantage/monopoly to certain private companies. Way to go government! Oh sure, the computer industry would have been a flop without these "de facto subsidies" to IBM!

[Fair&Balanced]

WTF?

All I see is bullshit coming right back at me.

What a surprise.

Global warming is a myth and governments dont stimulate innovation.

Drill Baby Drill!!!!

[Undertoad]

WOW, great reply! Didn't expect that! You really got me there! Fuck, I'm out of the thread while I figure out where I went wrong!




BTW, in this discussion, I'm the one who has actually worked in R&D.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This chart presents government spending as a percentage of GDP. This explains why Edison didn't get any government grants. Alexander Graham Bell, no fed funding. Henry Ford? You know the answer.

That chart does not definitively show that no money went to fund R&D.

[Undertoad]

It is in the section of the post that is a refutation of a generalization.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

WOW, great reply! Didn't expect that! You really got me there! Fuck, I'm out of the thread while I figure out where I went wrong!

You mean like this and this.

And posting a meaningless chart while ignoring the fact that I specifically said that it was not just R&D but government support (subsidies, tax benefits, etc.)as well.

But in fact, government R&D really started and grew with the establishment of land grant colleges in the 1860s for the purpose of promoting and supporting industrialization. Govt. grants kept many of those colleges in every state afloat for years.

BTW, you also ignored this in response to the same bullshit - economic doomsday if we regulate dirty air emissions - we are hearing today about regulating emissions.

[Spexxvet]

In both World Wars, the gubmint needed new weapons, like tanks and planes, and contracted private industry to develop them. I'd call that promoting R&D and new technology.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Why are you repeating extremist rants complete with juvenile chants? You told everyone in the Cellar that 117 papers prove global warming does not exist. Nobody else made those claims. Only you claimed those 117 paper prove global warming does not exist.

An honest Coign would easily cite numbers from ten of those 117 papers. Apparently Coign did not read or understand any of those papers. So again Coign using infantile behavior to avoid what is obvious. The obvious: Coign was lying to everyone in the Cellar.

Of course, Coign could repair his integrity. He could post numbers from ten papers that prove global warming does not exist. If Coign really was honest, he would have done that. After all, an honest Coign would have read all 117 papers before recommending them. Only brainwash disciples would boorishly recite political rhetoric. Coign could easily quote numbers from ten papers ... if Coign was being honest. Much harder is to post those numbers when 117 papers were not read and do not say what he claims.

This is my last post in this thread because you win. Your constant droning of inane nonsense has overcome my ability to try to post arguments, numbers, proof, and logical disagreements to your parroting of the same argument of, "you're lying" without ever doing your own independent research, looking at the material I try to shove under your nose, or actually posting anything of substance other than repeating that I am lying with all my figures, research and facts against your argument.

I honestly fear for this country and I can only hope that you are a) not an American or b) to lazy to get off the couch to vote.

Once again I leave you with two sites I really hope you open and just read through the "soundbites" and summaries and try to understand that bullshit you were fed by Al Gore was a money making scheme.

http://climategate.tv/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

On that note, I go back to my lying extremist thinking friends trying to fight to return our country back to a law-abiding-republic instead of the social-democracy that F&B and TW are trying so hard to create. I honestly wish you would just move to the EU where you would find like-minded people and leave us rebels on this side of the ocean alone.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

This is my last post in this thread because you win.

Thank you for admitting to lying to the Cellar. A political agenda has told you how to think. Had you admitted that up front, then this 'in your face' post would not be necessary or posted. But you wasted bandwidth to avoid admitting how easily the Limbaughs and Cheneys have so easily brainwashed you. Because you do not demand numbers and reasons why. Because you only believed what they ordered you to believe.

We massacred 4,500 American servicemen because many did as you did. You earned these paragraphs because you were not up front honest. You did not read and did not understand any of those 117 papers. And did not ask the damning questions that a moderate would do. Unethical is a kind way of summarizing it. Next time, hold Hannity, Beck, and other promoters of a political agenda to demands for hard facts and numbers. Then making a mistake about 117 papers would not happen.

[tw]

R&D comes from the private sector and from government. Take away either and we might as well declare ourselves a second class nation.

The only relevant argument is which R&D is productive. After all, government paid for something that had no value - except maybe to artillerymen. It was called the computer. The resulting artillery charts were too few too late. Therefore government R&D is not productive?

Well, let's see. The computer was started in the early 1940s. Did almost nothing until the 1960s. And only started making serious economic ROI after 1990s. That proves government R&D is useless?

The only valid question is which R&D is money wasted. Unfortunately, many who would answer that question do not even understand the difference between basic research and application research.

Now that so many companies have sold off or closed basic research facilities (ie Bell Labs is owned by a French company; Bendix labs no longer exist because basic R&D cannot be measured on any spread sheet), then government R&D has become that much more important.

The question is not whether government should do R&D. The question is why so many American companies no longer do it. Much if not most R&D in General Electric is in finance games. How to maximize profits rather than make better products.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can the government innovate? In the late 70s and 80s it founded the Department of Energy, and was suddenly spending big bucks funding alternative fuels, in the search to replace gasoline. How'd that go? Well two generations later, we've replaced 10% of gas with a more expensive alternative in order to get political support from the farmers. Good goin'!

It also about investing in new battery technology like the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans have done, with government support, in lithium-ion battery cells. US companies produce a miniscule share of this market.

I do love how two of your examples are providing a competitive advantage/monopoly to certain private companies. Way to go government! Oh sure, the computer industry would have been a flop without these "de facto subsidies" to IBM!

It is about public/private initiatives like SEMATECH which provides government support along with private investment so the US doesnt lose the semi-conductor market and can compete with heavily subsidized foreign companies.

It is about the NCSA super computer, the largest in the world, from which the private sector can research new technological applications.

I could go on if you like.

[Undertoad]

Please don't. In order to prove "Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D", you will have to list them all, and we don't have that kind of time.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Please don't. In order to prove "Every innovation from the Industrial Revolution through the Technology Revolution was supported by govt R&D", you will have to list them all, and we don't have that kind of time.

I take back the "every" and suggest that US government grants, tax benefits, subsidies, etc. provided significant and irreplaceable support to basic R&D that lead to significant private sector applications in the last 150+ years.

Originally Posted by Coign

On that note, I go back to my lying extremist thinking friends trying to fight to return our country back to a law-abiding-republic instead of the social-democracy that F&B and TW are trying so hard to create. I honestly wish you would just move to the EU where you would find like-minded people and leave us rebels on this side of the ocean alone.

Before I go to the EU as a non-law-abiding citizen...

Can I wave my magic socialist wand and return the US environment to its previous state of smog, polluted lakes and rivers, toxic waste dumps that were cleaned up as a result of federal regulations, with little or no adverse economic impact?

Can I take all the companies that developed the anti-pollution technologies as a result of the regulations, much with some form of government support or tax benefits?

Can I take the federally-funded NCSA super computer so that my friends in the EU, rather than US companies, can benefit and develop and patent new and cutting edge technologies?

[TheMercenary]

Is this where we hear about the advantages of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629