Glad to help, we need to get the green freaks out of here, before they screw things up even more.

Thanks, I could not have said it better.

Al Gore needs to stop yammering, and practice what he preaches, before telling everyone else to go without, so HE doesn't have to.

And the fact that there is not one shred of real proof that man made activites influence worldwide climate patterns, tells me all I need to know about this green sham.

If any climate changes occur, it is only because of the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate. This planet has been through countless warming and cooling cycles, long before man, and will continue to do so, long after we are gone.

No one here denies climate change, but the disagreement starts at the teaching that all of a sudden man is causing it to change or that it will change [ for the worse ] if we do not stop producing greenhouse gasses.

I work at a research University in the Physical Sciences department. Our modeling doesn't disprove Climate change, it supports it. The vast consensus in the Scientific community (though apparently not the blogger community) is that Climate Change is real and caused or abetted by Humans. That's reality, not a partisan position. It's really a shame that the Right wing puts partisan hatred over science.

Personally, I don't think Climate research computing is a good use of near-term stimulus dollars though I would love to have more computing funds available. A couple points of fact though..

There are more than professors that are involved in research computing. There are staff researchers who don't get tenure (or even the guarantee that they can find jobs). There are also IT Support staff that run the computer systems. I've had a significant increase in people asking about job opportunites in IT recently because they're getting laid off.

There is also the broader IT industry that would immediately benefit. Most of the compute clusters we see are assembled from commodity components from U.S. vendors. Pogo Linux, ASA, PSSC. These are American jobs. Of course there are also the ancillary economic benefits to construction/maintenance (data center-power, space, cooling, operations monitoring..)

This would create jobs, and pull people off the unemployment rolls.

Research Universities run on Grants and Donations, not tuition. Without Grants, you'd probably still be taking tonics for viral infections. You'd certainly not get weather forecasting and a million other modern-day conveniences because even private-sector research is built on 'pure research' done at Universities.

P.S. 'Global Warming', if true, would create weather instability. It doesn't turn Chicago into a Tropical Rain forest. I suspect the detractors know this, they're just being dishonest. One of the most striking predictions would be another European mini-ice age (like the one that happened naturally in the late middle ages). This would be caused by changes in the Atlantic thermohaline currents.

P.P.S. If Global Warming is, in fact, a hoax it's the best hoax ever perpetrated. If you really believe this is a hoax you first have to assume that 95+% of climatologists are involved in a vast conspiracy with no-one on the inside breaking ranks. You also have to have no understanding that a researcher with overwhelming strong research results disproving Climate change would not be suppressed but, rather, would become a 'rock star' in scientific circles. Tangentially the same would be true of someone who had real (any) research evidence disproving Evolution.

That said, if Climate Change IS a hoax, it's still the best hoax ever perpetrated on man. Global Warming advocates demand a decrease in technologies that are polluting to the environment. The results would be, obviously, decreased pollution (and resultant decrease in infrastructure damage and reduced medical costs for asthma, emphysema, cancer…). It would also force the United States to become more energy independent from nations who actively conspire against our interests. Long term benefits of energy independence include cost savings as other fuel sources are finite and their cost must go up as supplies dwindle. Additional cost savings to our economy would occur as technology improves (becomes more efficient, spurred by investment dollars in a competitive market, as larger efficiencies of scale are realized).

And finally (as far as I can manage off the top of my head), an energy migration from polluting to 'green' technologies would require investment and job creation as claimed by the President.

Sure, solar and wind can never replace existing power infrastructure completely. No one claims that. They can, however, benefit the economy, the environment, and the geo-political forces aligned against the US.

The builders that built all those homes that nobody can pay for spent that income and are now looking for jobs. I see the problem but I have no answers as to what to do now.

Our new president is only trying doing what he knows how to do, loan money to gain power over those who take it, something I learned long ago when I was self employed and got stung by this common practise.

Pure fiction! This was caused by the CRA, the more aggressive CRA, which caused FNMA and Freddie Mac to fail, which essentially took all the banks down with them. The Bush administration tried repeatedly to fix this before it happened. OFEO reported, year after year, about the shenanigans that were happening at FNMA and Freddie Mac. Only a couple of years ago, Barney Frank said, over and over, in a public hearing that FNMA was doing just fine.