Peak Oil has the same issue Global Warming does.

Peak Oil was supposed to happen in like... 1998.

Oil SHOULD run out at some time, but it's pretty clear that the models involved were greatly exagerrated and don't include many new discoveries of oil and just new ways to access it.

When we really are approaching peak oil... the governments will know it for real, both sides... and will get a lot more serious about it.

Actually, if you follow the link in my post, research is showing that we hit peak oil around 2008. That's not to say that it's definitive evidence, but the reasoning is fairly sound. And I do think most governments in the world are accutely aware of increasing oil prices, I know prices have been climbing steadily for a few years here in Denmark at least.

But let's say we haven't hit peak oil yet. Why shouldn't we be preparing for when we inevitably run out of oil, not to mention coal and all the other finite resources we're dependant on?

Dude, your the conspiracy theorist.  The studies back it up costing jobs... and both sides of government admit it to be so, and that it was a failure.

What STUDIES? ANd WHAT ADMISSION?

So uh... hwow is that a conspiracy?

Instead your backing one pro green jobs propganda study...

Propoganda? It's "peer reviewing" the study! Since when is peer review propoganda? You keep glossing over what I type out for you everytime! Their methodologies are faulty, according to the consensus of peer reviewed method. YOUR assertion is that these foundational, accepted methodologies are faulty in the first place, and that SOMEHOW, this ONE study got it right. THAT is called CONSPIRACY.

The limitations in the King Carlos study was how job losses could be BIGGER.  Not smaller...

No, READ the article I provided you

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.

The study limitations HURT your case, not help it.

Keep sourcing the same study over and over, that'll help your case in proving to me that THIS specific study got it right where all others failed.

Saying that domestic energy costs are too high has nothing to do with green tech. Energy could ALWAYS have been much higher in the first place, so that even half the cost would still be too much.

The very author you cited, notes only a month before that energy costs were lower than they had been. I linked you her article too!

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.