If I Wanted America to Fail....

[Kasz216]

theprof00 said:

Kasz216 said:

theprof00 said:

Kasz216 said:

A) You don't seem to know what the peer review process is.  The Peer Review process happens before the paper is published.  Said paper was published and passed the peer review process.  The NREL report is what could be properly termed as "Damage control" to avoid losing funding.  Since NREL's existence is based entirely around green jobs being attractive.

You may as well be showing a study by Tobacco companies showing ciagerrettes don't cause cancer.

 

I'd suggest you actually read it.

I have... if you do... it's fairly obvious to see there arguements mostly rely on "future benefits" (which have since crashed) and Job creations vary, so if this money would of been used to create better jobs, the amount of job loss would be less.  (though still a loss.)

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

I was simply saying that it was the same thing.

Damage Control? It points out flaws that are completely visible in the study! They're not lies, it's completely right! Damage control! Ludicrous.

Yes but except studies against tobacco are NUMEROUS, and this is ONE ISOLATED study. You compare two completely different things like you're an expert, but you're not. You take a flawed thing and call it "misrepresented" or "completely honest" and "accurate. (paraphrasing) And try to compare it to something completely opposite to point out some vague notion of similar "conspiracy".

You focus what you want to focus on and ignore everything else.

Good day, sir.

The problem is... they mostly aren't flaws.  Like I said... actually read it.

Also, the difference is between projections (previous studies) and then actual studying of effects. (current studies.  Mostly all negative.)

There are TONS of these... I just went with the Spanish one because it's most direct.

Stuff like

 

Is widely unchallenged and accpeted all over.

 

You get op eds in places like the New york times talking about this stuff

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.html

 

Again it's a blind adherence to projections... with complete lack of attention paid to actual results.

 

Projections are worthless the minute results are available... and the results aren't pretty.

 

You get tons of money spent, that could be in the economy used for real job creation, or hell even used by the government to create more jobs.

The very root of the problem is in this term "subsidy per job". It has no relevance on anything. That's like saying, OK, we spent 40 billion making this nuke plant, and it employs 4000, so we spent 40m per job. That's not how it works. We spent 40b creating a resource, the 4000 people it employs is a benefit, not a cost.

It is a very misleading way to approach the argument.

Except you know... when that money could be spent elsewhere to create MORE jobs.