2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

So I intended to hold my peace, but I find that difficult. So let me clarify my meaning first.

Not sure about that, as we are seeing in France now as well as in California, high taxes can cause people to flee.

My point is that increased taxes, to any degree, on a marginal portion of the population is not as significant as taxes on say, the middle class. That's just the numbers.

And I would note that the Republican party did not take it as a joke. And obviously the actions of Obama and the Democrats reflected his sentiment. From Obamacare to the Stimulus the Republicans found themselves on the outside looking in with the Democrats more concerned with getting support from the Blue Dogs in their own party instead of the Republican party.

Again, I'm not going to say Obama's statement was necessarily a wise choice; I also don't think the Republicans needed an excuse to refuse to compromise. Nor do most Democrats. But I highly doubt Obama's comment had any significant bearing on the actions of the Republican party. The other causes you cite are certainly more likely.

Excuse me but the reasonable tax increases were $800 billion, by a increase of $400 billion, Obama not only betrayed Boehner but also reached for a bridge too far. Like it or not the $1 trillion level, is a line that no politician really wants to cross, as noted by the Stimulus and Obamacare struggling to remain under that line.

You make it all sound so very Machiavellian. Really, Obama just saw what he thought was a better deal, took it, realized his mistake, and then reversed his decision. In an understanding society, in which politics are mutable, this would not be a problem. Furthermore, $1 trillion is still an arbitrary number and "reasonable" is clearly up for debate, but if the net effect was still a tax reduction for the middle class and the poor, which is the most significant factor in growing the economy, then what are we worrying about?

Obama tried to walk back to the reasonable deal after he had betrayed Boehner, betrayed the work, and had created upheaval in both parties. The idea that Boehner would go back to the table after all Obama had done to kill the deal in the first place is ludicrous. Your efforts to act as if Obama is some kind of good hearted person working against the Partisan Forces seems to remain absolutely ignorant to the point of absurdity of Obama's own effort to kill the deal he made with Boehner in the first place.

"Good-hearted" is a strong word to describe any politician. But I do think Obama is looking out for the American people, and especially those that have been trampled by business-as-usual. And yes, Obama made a bold move by asking for increases; but for Boehner to consider this a "betrayal" and refuse to return to the table for negotiations on the previous deal because of some bad blood and hurt feelings is just juvenile. If Obama really wanted to kill the deal he made with Boehner he certainly wouldn't have tried to compromise after Boehner rejected the alternative.

So your proof is a pledge, one that usually politicians sign to get support from the voters. You have no proof of the inside of the meetings as I have posted, no proof of anything said in the capital, no whip count, you have a pledge. You realize how pathetic of a argument that is?

I gesture to the pledge as an example of unnecessary political theatrics, which some Republicans have clearly taken too much to heart. Note that I'm not disagreeing that the $800 billion deal would have been easier to achieve. Your argument clearly supports that. Obama overestimated the potential to succeed at passing a bill with $1.2 trillion in revenues.

Growing? As you have noticed we are stuck in a malaze, we have the lowest workforce participation in decades. We have employment growing at a rate lower than population growth. How is Obama's economic efforts contributing to a growing economy?

The specific merits of the economic recovery are something that may be too complex to discuss in this kind of space. But suffice to say I've heard it both ways from various sources on either side of the aisle. Either way, Romney's desire to continue to decrease taxes on the wealthy, uphold current tax loopholes, and continue with "trickle down" economic policies would be more stifling to any growth than any effect Obama's policies might have had. The long-term effects on income inequality in this country from Romney's economic plan, moreover, are outright disturbing.

We can go back and forth as to what Scientists agree...

No, we can't. If you don't think Global Warming is scientific fact, you're simply ignorant of the copious amount of data that is available, and how it should best be interpreted. This is not up for debate.

...however it remains ignorant on your part not to understand the politics that have been injected into it. Just as it remains ignorant on your part not to understand that there is no real great alternative right now to fight Global Warming. I will point you to Germany who has worked very hard to transform itself into a Green Energy country, it's power grid is so poor now, that it is facing serious black outs next winter due to inadequacy in power supply from it's own green energy program.

I didn't say it wasn't political. But this is one situation where the current American political climate is simply in ignorance of reality, and the Republican party, which continues to ignore climate change, must bear the greater part of the blame. There is no one answer to Global Warming, I agree. But to do nothing is much, much worse. Moreover, there are various win-win, profitable options that most businesses could readily implement; but America has failed to achieve even these. And largely because of the continued denial of the existence of climate change. But it's already here, and it will get much, much worse.

Germany's potential for increased black-outs has nothing to do with its "green energy" programs. It has everything to do with their accelerated exit from nuclear energy, which was provoked by the events in Japan. I actually think nuclear power plants are a much better alternative to those run on coal or natural gas; nuclear energy may not be renewable, but it is certainly more manageable, as it has less impact on our atmosphere. However, it's clear that we need to look for other alternatives too.

[Roy Karrde]

My point is that increased taxes, to any degree, on a marginal portion of the population is not as significant as taxes on say, the middle class. That's just the numbers.

That is unless your tax base flees, as again shown in California and France, or they seek further ways to hide their taxes. In which case you come in with less money than before.

Again, I'm not going to say Obama's statement was necessarily a wise choice; I also don't think the Republicans needed an excuse to refuse to compromise. Nor do most Democrats. But I highly doubt Obama's comment had any significant bearing on the actions of the Republican party. The other causes you cite are certainly more likely.

And why did the Republicans need the excuse? The sound of the meetings before the statement show that the Democrats and Republicans were at the edge of a compromise. Furthermore it is shown in there that Boehner and the rest felt betrayed, and that the statement signaled the beginning of the end. Rather you like it or not, Obama's statement took what was a compromise and tossed it in the trash, after that there was no going back.

You make it all sound so very Machiavellian. $1 trillion is still an arbitrary number and "reasonable" is clearly up for debate, but if the net effect was still a tax reduction for the middle class and the poor, which is the most significant factor in growing the economy, then what are we worrying about?

It all comes back to how to sell it to the voters, while $1 trillion is a arbitrary number, it is one in politics that both sides tend to stay away from in how hard it is to sell to voters. Again I point back to the effort in Obamacare to keep it below that mark.

"Good-hearted" is a strong word to describe any politician. But I do think Obama is looking out for the American people, and especially those that have been trampled by business-as-usual. And yes, Obama made a bold move by asking for increases; but for Boehner to consider this a "betrayal" and refuse to return to the table for negotiations on the previous deal because of some bad blood and hurt feelings is just juvenile.

How is it juvenile? Obama betrayed the negotiation, showed that he is not willing to honor any deal, and basically destroyed Boehner's political credit with the party. If Boehner went back after this explosion there was little chance of it being passed that in and of itself is the political reality of the fall out of Obama's actions. Furthermore there is no guarantee that Obama would not betray Boehner again and leave him hanging out to dry. He did it once, what are the chances that Obama wouldn't do it again?

To put it simply, why would Boehner endanger his Speakership, for a compromise that now lays dead because of the events of the previous week, and for a President who has already shown to betray such a compromise for anything he sees is better?

I gesture to the pledge as an example of unnecessary political theatrics, which some Republicans have clearly taken too much to heart. Note that I'm not disagreeing that the $800 billion deal would have been easier to achieve. Your argument clearly supports that. Obama overestimated the potential to succeed at passing a bill with $1.2 trillion in revenues.

And yet your pledge does not prove that the $800 billion dollar deal could not get a majority in either houses of Congress. Either provide proof or concede.

The specific merits of the economic recovery are something that may be too far out of my element to discuss. But suffice to say I've heard it both ways from various sources on either side of the aisle. Either way, Romney's desire to continue to decrease taxes on the wealthy, uphold current tax loopholes, and continue with "trickle down" economic policies would be more stifling to any growth that is occurring than anything done by Obama. The long-term effects on income inequality in this country, moreover, are outright disturbing.

No doubt it is disturbing but on the other hand we wish to show America is open and friendly to business, not add in more regulation and taxes as Obama wishes to do. Especially with Europe on the verge of collapsing.

No, we can't. If you don't think Global Warming is scientific fact, you're simply ignorant of the copious amount of data that is available, and how it should best be interpreted. This is not up for debate.

Correction it is not something you wish to debate.

I didn't say it wasn't political. But this is one situation where the current American political climate is simply in ignorance of reality, and the Republican party, which continues to ignore climate change, must bear the greater part of the blame. There is no one answer to Global Warming, I agree. But to do nothing is much, much worse. Moreover, there are various win-win, profitable options that most businesses could readily implement; but America has failed to achieve even these. And largely because of the continued denial of the existence of climate change. But it's already here, and it will get much, much worse.

And how well have those profitable options worked out? Solyndra? The Chevy Volt? Windmills? The list goes on and on and on.

Germany's potential for increased black-outs has nothing to do with its "green energy" programs. It has everything to do with their accelerated exit from nuclear energy, which was precipitated by the events in Japan. I actually think nuclear power plants are a much better alternative to those run on coal or natural gas; nuclear energy may not be renewable, but it is certainly more manageable, as it has less impact on our atmosphere. However, it's clear that we need to look for other alternatives too.

No doubt the Nuclear Energy is a better option, but I might add that in your haste to point fingers at parties you ignore the fact that it is the left who have done their best to kill any effort into Nuclear Energy, not the right.

[Plantae]

That is unless your tax base flees, as again shown in California and France, or they seek further ways to hide their taxes. In which case you come in with less money than before.

Just because it would cause people to behave illegally does not mean it is the incorrect choice.

And why did the Republicans need the excuse? The sound of the meetings before the statement show that the Democrats and Republicans were at the edge of a compromise. Furthermore it is shown in there that Boehner and the rest felt betrayed, and that the statement signaled the beginning of the end. Rather you like it or not, Obama's statement took what was a compromise and tossed it in the trash, after that there was no going back.

I think this is a lot to extrapolate from two words. But clearly we disagree on that point.

It all comes back to how to sell it to the voters, while $1 trillion is a arbitrary number, it is one in politics that both sides tend to stay away from in how hard it is to sell to voters. Again I point back to the effort in Obamacare to keep it below that mark.

I think we both know that there are more important matters than political expediency. But again, I don't disagree with the perception of $1 trillion as catastrophically large. But where's the math to show that this greater amount of tax revenues would actually be harmful?

How is it juvenile? Obama betrayed the negotiation, showed that he is not willing to honor any deal, and basically destroyed Boehner's political credit with the party. If Boehner went back after this explosion there was little chance of it being passed that in and of itself is the political reality of the fall out of Obama's actions. Furthermore there is no guarantee that Obama would not betray Boehner again and leave him hanging out to dry. He did it once, what are the chances that Obama wouldn't do it again?

To put it simply, why would Boehner endanger his Speakership, for a compromise that now lays dead because of the events of the previous week, and for a President who has already shown to betray such a compromise for anything he sees is better?

When you start using words like "honor" to describe modern political process, you've missed the point. We're not living in a feudal society anymore. Viewpoints change, and we must allow for these changes. Obama did what anyone would do in his situation. He took the best deal he thought he could achieve, and he was wrong. But I don't think he did it out of spite. By demonstrating a willingness to fall back to the previous deal, Obama was showing his ability to cut his losses and re-negotiate. Why would Boehner return to the table? Perhaps because doing what's best for the nation is the right thing to do. Sure, he would have been undermining his own power, but is that the role the voters asked him to play? No. As to whether Obama's stepping back from the original deal would have killed any attempt to return to it, I don't think that's something either of us can predict. It is possible that Republicans would have been stalwart in viewing Obama's actions as a betrayal, but doing so would have been petty. If they really had America's best interests at heart, they would have allowed the grand bargain to proceed. But I realize that's an overly idealistic view.

My point is that Obama acted to take the deal with $1.2 trillion in revenues not because it would increase his own political power, but because it was what he thought was right. When Obama attempted to re-negotiate and Boehner refused, Boehner did so out of spite. That's the difference to me.

And yet your pledge does not prove that the $800 billion dollar deal could not get a majority in either houses of Congress. Either provide proof or concede.

Because that's not what I'm arguing. I just stated in my previous post that I agreed that $800 billion would have been more likely to pass, and that Obama probably miscalculated.

No doubt it is disturbing but on the other hand we wish to show America is open and friendly to business, not add in more regulation and taxes as Obama wishes to do. Especially with Europe on the verge of collapsing.

There's a difference between "open and friendly to business" and "controlled by big business interests."

Correction it is not something you wish to debate.

Yes, because one does not generally debate facts. I could post an entire thread worth of evidence, but I doubt that would be appreciated. And it's all freely available. No doubt you would disbelieve it if you saw it. But that's just confirmation bias.

And how well have those profitable options worked out? Solyndra? The Chevy Volt? Windmills? The list goes on and on and on.

These are not the options I am discussing. I'm discussing simple, cost-saving measures for energy efficiency, like LED light bulbs. Windmills, are, as you say, cost-ineffective at the present. More research is necessary into alternative means of energy. But there are ways we can make a rather short-term profit while also achieving a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Will they be enough? Absolutely not.

No doubt the Nuclear Energy is a better option, but I might add that in your haste to point fingers at parties you ignore the fact that it is the left who have done their best to kill any effort into Nuclear Energy, not the right.

Because I'm not denying that leftist voices have opposed Nuclear Energy. But better to deny one source of alternative energy than to deny them all.

[Roy Karrde]

Just because it would cause people to behave illegally does not mean it is the incorrect choice.

Who says it is illegal? Last time I checked leaving a country or state, or seeking tax havens are legal.

I think we both know that there are more important matters than political expediency. But again, I don't disagree with the perception of $1 trillion as catastrophically large. But where's the math to show that this greater amount of tax revenues would actually be harmful?

Harmful to the economy? No. Harmful to their individual political fortunes? Very.

But I will remind you that, that $1 trillion dollars in taxes is not guaranteed. Why don't you go ask the State Government of California about what happens when revenues from tax increases do not meet their intended target. I believe they have about 16 billion examples of what happens.

When you start using words like "honor" to describe modern political process, you've missed the point. We're not living in a feudal society anymore. Viewpoints change, and we must allow for these changes. Obama did what anyone would do in his situation. He took the best deal he thought he could achieve, and he was wrong.

What anyone would do? Anyone would throw away weeks of negotiation on a surefire deal for one that he had not even seen the paper work on yet? I am sorry but I cannot believe that "anyone" would be that stupid.

But I don't think he did it out of spite. By demonstrating a willingness to fall back to the previous deal, Obama was showing his ability to cut his losses and re-negotiate.

Of course he was, because at this point any deal for him would be better than nothing. He was to believe that Boehner would welcome him coming back in open arms after he spit in his face.

Why would Boehner return to the table? Perhaps because doing what's best for the nation is the right thing to do. Sure, he would have been undermining his own power, but is that the role the voters asked him to play? No.

In what world do you honestly believe that the deal was still available? After Obama torpedoed the deal, the political partisans on the right and left went out with the long knives. Obama killed any opportunity for both sides to privately whip their members into agreeing with the deal.

As to whether Obama's stepping back from the original deal would have killed any attempt to return to it, I don't think that's something either of us can predict. It is possible that Republicans would have been stalwart in viewing Obama's actions as a betrayal, but doing so would have been petty. If they really had America's best interests at heart, they would have allowed the grand bargain to proceed. But I realize that's an overly idealistic view.

I would suggest reading the article, it wasn't just Republicans that were against it. Democrats wanted more as well, and once Obama endorsed the Gang of Six's deal there was no going back to smaller portions for each. Like it or not Obama killed any attempt to return.

My point is that Obama acted to take the deal with $1.2 trillion in revenues not because it would increase his own political power, but because it was what he thought was right. When Obama attempted to re-negotiate and Boehner refused, Boehner did so out of spite. That's the difference to me.

And again I ask what is right about betraying weeks of negotiations? What is right for publicly cutting loose a sure fire deal and burning your bridges with it, for a deal that the paper work had not been released yet? What was right about that?

There's a difference between "open and friendly to business" and "controlled by big business interests."

You will notice that many of those people we wish to come here represent "big business interests". It is not the Mom and Pop Stores that are fleeing France, it is the multi millionaires.

Yes, because one does not generally debate facts. I could post an entire thread worth of evidence, but I doubt that would be appreciated. And it's all freely available. No doubt you would disbelieve it if you saw it. But that's just confirmation bias.

You act as if it is a hard and settled fact, is there not science that comes out every day that opens up new information about Global Warming? Is there not scandals and research that come out everyday that contradict previous research? The science in Global Warming is ever evolving, trying to say what we know right now is solid fact is purely ignorant to science.

Because I'm not denying that leftist voices have opposed Nuclear Energy. But better to deny one source of alternative energy than to deny them all.

Last time I checked Republicans have supported a all of the above approach since atleast 2008. While the Left has long since been opposed to Nuclear Energy since the 70s.

[Plantae]

Who says it is illegal? Last time I checked leaving a country or state, or seeking tax havens are legal.

Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of tax evasion. But yes, both those things are legal.

Harmful to the economy? No. Harmful to their individual political fortunes? Very.

I'll concede it would be harmful to their political fortunes. But again, is that the reason we elect our representatives? To look out for their "individual political fortunes?"

In what world do you honestly believe that the deal was still available? After Obama torpedoed the deal, the political partisans on the right and left went out with the long knives. Obama killed any opportunity for both sides to privately whip their members into agreeing with the deal.

I would like to imagine a world where politicians can rise above petty disputes and succeed at actually drafting useful policy. Is that the world we live in? No. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown as much.

And of course I realize Boehner's actions were motivated by political necessity. But they certainly were not motivated by a desire to help the public. And that's my point. As "stupid" as you may consider Obama's choice to be, he was only hoping he could get the best deal he could for the American people. To hold him accountable for this mistake may have been politically sensible and expedient, but it was by no means right.

You will notice that many of those people we wish to come here represent "big business interests". It is not the Mom and Pop Stores that are fleeing France, it is the multi millionaires.

I'm not necessarily saying that we could not, in some ways, decrease taxes on corporations, but we must understand that any such tax cuts must be paid for. Republicans rail against Democrats for excess spending, but giving unnecessary tax cuts has the same effect. We need to balance our economy, which requires giving an in-depth look to all possible areas of improvement. Stimulating business is one facet. Decreasing spending is another. Republicans seem fascinated with these ideas, but many fail to release that these things alone are not enough to repair the federal deficit or fix the economy. Tax increases will be required. But I agree that we must be careful about where and how we enact them. It's not a simple choice. It needs to be carefully considered. But in my opinion, a rational plan of this scope is outside Mitt Romney's realm of thought.

You act as if it is a hard and settled fact, is there not science that comes out every day that opens up new information about Global Warming? Is there not scandals and research that come out everyday that contradict previous research? The science in Global Warming is ever evolving, trying to say what we know right now is solid fact is purely ignorant to science.

It is a hard and settled fact. Science may disagree on some minor, quibbling details about Global Warming, but the central idea, that climate change is here already and will have a much more dramatic effect in the future, is not debated. Insofar as new research is emerging, it is often on the scope of the change. If anything, contradictory research suggests that it may be larger than we originally imagined, not smaller. To ignore this kind of data is irresponsible. I urge you to read the various summary reports available from world organizations on climate change.

Last time I checked Republicans have supported an all of the above approach since at least 2008. While the Left has long since been opposed to Nuclear Energy since the 70s.

You're right. Many Republicans are receptive to alternative energy. But some others are not. Most Democrats are not receptive to nuclear energy. But some are. We must make careful choices about which avenues to support as we attempt to deal with the energy crisis, and we cannot be too quick to ignore any potential, renewable or near-renewable source of energy. However, one thing we can't abide is a continued reliance on petroleum; I think it's clear which party is more interested in maintaining the status quo in that regard. And that's part of the problem.

[Roy Karrde]

I'll concede it would be harmful to their political fortunes. But again, is that the reason we elect our representatives? To look out for their "individual political fortunes?"

No we elect them to represent our views in Congress, and if we disagree with something, as this surely would have been disagreed with, we vote them out if they do not follow our views.

And of course I realize Boehner's actions were motivated by political necessity. But they certainly were not motivated by a desire to help the public. And that's my point. As "stupid" as you may consider Obama's choice to be, he was only hoping he could get the best deal he could for the American people. To hold him accountable for this mistake may have been politically sensible and expedient, but it was by no means right.

Was it the best deal for the public, or was it the best deal for his own legacy? The best deal for the public would be the one that would be amicable for both parties, and that would get through Congress. The best deal for his own legacy would be the one that is as big as possible.

I cannot see how you can say with a straight face that he was doing the best deal for the American people when:

A: He discarded the surefire deal for one that he had no idea if it would pass.

B: Had not even seen the specifics of the Gang of Six deal.

I'm not necessarily saying that we could not, in some ways, decrease taxes on corporations, but we must understand that any such tax cuts must be paid for. Republicans rail against Democrats for excess spending, but giving unnecessary tax cuts has the same effect. We need to balance our economy, which requires giving an in-depth look to all possible areas of improvement. Stimulating business is one facet. Decreasing spending is another. Republicans seem fascinated with these ideas, but many fail to release that these things alone are not enough to repair the federal deficit or fix the economy. Tax increases will be required. But I agree that we must be careful about where and how we enact them. It's not a simple choice. It needs to be carefully considered. But in my opinion, a rational plan of this scope is outside Mitt Romney's realm of thought.

And how do you come to that line of logic? Are you briefed in depth with Romney's plan or are you being Partisan? I agree that tax increases will be needed, but as Obama and Clinton in the past have noted, they can only be used when the Economy is working correctly again. Placing tax increases in the economy we are currently in will only work to depress it. Which means less jobs, which means less spending, which means less tax revenue.

It is a hard and settled fact. Science may disagree on some minor, quibbling details about Global Warming, but the central idea, that climate change is here already and will have a much more dramatic effect in the future, is not debated. Insofar as new research is emerging, it is often on the scope of the change. If anything, contradictory research suggests that it may be larger than we originally imagined, not smaller. To ignore this kind of data is irresponsible. I urge you to read the various summary reports available from world organizations on climate change.

I have, I have also seen falsified data and reports from world organizations such as the IPCC. I am also curious how you can say that when things like CLOUD begins casting doubts on what is causing Global Warming.

You're right. Many Republicans are receptive to alternative energy. But some others are not. Most Democrats are not receptive to nuclear energy. But some are. We must make careful choices about which avenues to support as we attempt to deal with the energy crisis, and we cannot be too quick to ignore any potential, renewable or near-renewable source of energy. However, one thing we can't abide is a continued reliance on petroleum; I think it's clear which party is more interested in maintaining the status quo in that regard. And that's part of the problem.

And yet could that be because many of the technologies we have researched outside of nuclear power have been wasteful and or money pits ala Windmills and Solar Power?

[Plantae]

Was it the best deal for the public, or was it the best deal for his own legacy? The best deal for the public would be the one that would be amicable for both parties, and that would get through Congress. The best deal for his own legacy would be the one that is as big as possible.

I agree that the best deal would be the one that would be amicable to both parties. But I disagree that Obama was attempting to expand his own legacy by choosing the alternative deal. I believe he miscalculated, and thought he could push to increase revenues to $1.2 trillion, but that he was wrong. I also think that he did so because he thought more revenues was wiser economic policy. However, clearly we cannot exactly pinpoint Obama's intentions.

But either way, Boehner made the politically expedient choice in rejecting any attempting at re-negotiating the deal. Perhaps it was the most sensible choice. But again, that does not suggest at all that it was right.

And how do you come to that line of logic? Are you briefed in depth with Romney's plan or are you being Partisan? I agree that tax increases will be needed, but as Obama and Clinton in the past have noted, they can only be used when the Economy is working correctly again. Placing tax increases in the economy we are currently in will only work to depress it. Which means less jobs, which means less spending, which means less tax revenue.

I did mention that I agree it is important to know when to increase taxes. But even in this economy, increasing certain taxes and closing loopholes can increase revenues with negligible harm. As to Romney's economic plan, those positions that he has stated have indicated that he would reform the tax code, but that the majority of the cuts would be rewarded to wealthy individuals. This will not stimulate the economy. His proposed tax reforms also place an additional burden on the middle class and those making minimum wage. He also advocates spending cuts for social programs, while advocating an increase in defense spending. When our primary issues are domestic, why do we need a bigger military, I ask? And how will cutting social programs for the impoverished encourage economic recovery?

I have, I have also seen falsified data and reports from world organizations such as the IPCC. I am also curious how you can say that when things like CLOUD begins casting doubts on what is causing Global Warming.

CLOUD is not a new theory, nor is it correct. It has already been debunked by the scientific community. Even if some portion of Global Warming data were to be false, the evidence is so copious at this point that no single data point is the crux of the argument. The support is undeniable. The dissent is just the antics of bought-and-paid-for advocacy groups, who want to introduce doubt where there is none. All nationally and internationally accredited scientific organizations and close to 97% of all scientific papers agree that climate change is reality.

Edit: Also, I'll note the article you've indicated as your source was written by Warren Meyer, a conservative libertarian blogger and known climate skeptic. Moreover, Meyer has absolutely no specialist knowledge in the field, and has been a consultant for Fortune 50 companies. His opinion could hardly be considered a neutral perspective on the issue.

And yet could that be because many of the technologies we have researched outside of nuclear power have been wasteful and or money pits ala Windmills and Solar Power?

It's true that many alternative energy technologies have not been as profitable as we hoped. But in some cases, this is more of a short-term issue. In the long-term, they will be more profitable in almost all cases, as the economic cost associated with continued reliance on petroleum is much, much greater. And all this indicates is a need for continued research into green energy. In an ideal reality, we might have worked out nuclear fusion by now, ha.