Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I beg to differ, Mr. Hinteler. European Products are not of minor quality but they are overpriced. They have to be with the wage scales in Europe as opposed to other countries.

I think it would be more productive to continue to examine whether the Socialist model works.

In the USA at this time, only 9% of the workers in blue collar jobs are Unionized. Unionization does protect the worker but in this new era of globalization it leads to the failure of the enterprise since the workers who are not unionized in other countries( All other factors being equal) will produce a similar or better product at a lower cost.

Your chart is interesting,Mr.Hinteler. I had not expected Japan to be so low.

Well, I was just referring to your very own words.

In fact the German Social Democrat model worked exceedingly well for a long time. Its beginnings go back to the 19th century with Bismasrk's policy of economic liberalism and political authoritarianism. the result was rapid economic growth accompanyied by great improvements in the economic situation of the working class. These economic policies were resumed after the "economic miracle" of German post-war recovery got off the ground, and they worked well until recently.

It isn't so much that the system has failed, as it is a case of a change in the underlying demographic and international trade conditions, making what was once either inherently beneficial or merely affordable, (depending on your point of view politically), into a serious problem and drag on the general welfare under the new external conditions.

Life and human society are very complex things. I don't think there are any permanent "right" answers that are valid and beneficial; always and under all conditions. I do believe that the Western World does need to become more competitive economically, and begin to deal with the impossible combination of accelerating demographic decline and unwillingness to accept large-scale immigratiomn that cureently besets most of Europe.

One of the observable features of history seems to be the phenomenon that the lights never burn so brightly (at least for the privileged) as just before they burn out. It is very hard politically to convince an ageing generation (or their coddled children) that has it very good that fundamental change is needed.

I sincerely doubt that Bismarck can be positioned only close to the Social Democrats - he actually introduced the "anti-social-democrat laws' ).

Besides that, what you call a "German Social Democrat model" was (re-) introduced after WWII by the conservatives (Christian Demacrats/Christian Socialist), namely Adenauer and especially Ludwig Erhardt (the "father of social market economy").

I ask you kindly to remember that Social Democrats didn't come to government until the 70's of last century - a time, when the cutting started.

Bernie is an artisan pig. Capitalist/corporate pig found Here. If anyone decides to rent a helicopter and dump many pounds of liquid pigshit onto these people, please contact me for help in funding.

A real nice guy are you?

Ever read Mark Twain's "Advice to Youth"?

Walter,

Sometimes I think you look hard for points of disagreement where none exists.

My rather loose reference to"social democrat model" referred to the social security and labor regulations initially introduced by Bismark. They would hardly qualify as social democratic policies now, but at the time they were new and a bit radical compared to what then existed in the UK, the U.S, and France. I did indeed note that these policies were reintroduced after the WWII recovery got underway - though I didn't mention Adenauer or Erhardt by name.

Are you trying to suggest that the German Social Democrat Party started "the cutting" of benefits when they came to political power in the 1970s???

They had to - any other party as well, I suppose.

You named it "social democrat model" - and it isn't at all.
(The 'social democrat model' of the 1880's was going in the same direction, that's true, but actually even much farther.)

You are much more easily irritated by careless references to your political party than I am to serious attacks on mine. We conservatives are much more easy-going and tolerant.

(Not to be misunderstood: therefore an additional :wink: )

I am beholden to Mr. Hinteler's explanation and to the comments from GeorgeOb1. Mr. Hinteler, who, I am certain, knows a great deal about the nuances in German society and goverment, is certainly on target with his comments. I accept them as on point and valuable.

Mr. Hinteler, who, as he has proved over and over, is sensitive to the Zeitgiest of the German state. His comments show that there is usually very little wisdom involved making statements about a country in which you have not lived or studied intensively for years.

I would submit that the same is true for people who have not lived in or intensively studied the USA for years. Usually, they do not know what they are talking about.

Again, thank you for the insights about Germany, Mr. Hinteler and Mr. George OB 1

You are so right, Mr. Bernhard.
I think, however, you are raising the bar very high: calling a history professor at Princetown (with degrees from Yale and Oxford) an idiot [on another htread] lets me really even look more stupid ...

Mr. Hinteler- Unless I am in error, I believe that the professor in question published in Rolling Stone magazine. I am sure that no respectable German Professor would allow his writings to be printed in a magazine which caters to rock music fanatics, perverts, and teen agers.

He must really be desperate for cash!!

We really should be getting back to the topic-I believe it is correct to stay on topic-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted twelve Items so that Mr. Kuvasz could peruse them and answer them.

No one has seen fit to attempt to rebut them. I will hold that the twelve Items I posted, when read by anyone who knows how to think, will show that there are so many problems involved in the global warming area, that there can be no definitive answers at this time.

Mr. Timberlandko was the only one who delved into "climate science" and Foxfyre touched on it.

I will not replicate my posts but will rather list the main point covered by each one of my items- 1-12. If those posts cannot be rebutted, I must, of course, indicate that I have not been rebutted and, therefore, my posts stand.

l. Problem with usage of temperature proxy data

2. Problem set up by the 1910-1945 temperature increase

3. Problem set up by the inability to predict the global temperature over the coming years because of the incredible complexity of the Earth's climate and the factors which go into it.

4. Faithful modeling of all the important factors in the climate system is something that current computer models cannot handle.

5. The effect of water vapor feedback is poorly understood and may, according to some theorists, lead to much less warming than predicted.

6. Problem set up by the fact that the observed troposcopic warming shows no real trend.

7. Models utlized by the IPCC appear to overestimate "warming". The IPCC has laid out 40 scenarios and appear to be touting the most pessimistic ones. It must be repeated that these are all COMPUTER MODELS.

8.Other contributors to the possible warming may be, for one, solar activity. If that is correct, at least part of the global warming is completely uncontrollable

************************************************************

People who have read about "Global warming" are aware that the Kyoto Protocol was presented to the US Senate in 1997. The US Senate turned it down 95-0 mainly because the protocol did not include China and India since they were listed as "Developing Countries".

Mr. Walter Hinteler gives an interesting poll which shows how people FEEL about Global Warming.

I have information which, I am certain, is far more important than how people feel about Global Warming. It tells us what people DO about Global Warming--especially the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR20050628011248

note- If this link does not get you to the information below, search--

Robert Samuelson Greenhouse Hypocrisy


Robert Samuelson tells us that Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy.

quote

"Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George W. Bush for not embracing the Kyoto protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions--the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990(Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002,global emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The US increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases:

France 6.9 percent, Italy 8.3 percent, Greece 28.2 percent, Ireland 40.3 percent, the Netherlands 13.2 per cent, Portugal 59 percent, spain 46.9 percent, It is true that Germany ( down 13.3 percent) has made big reductions. But those cuts were not due to Kyoto. Since 1990 Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in Eastern Germany, that was a huge one time saving....On their present courses, many Euopean countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming--and then do little...since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent, Japan's 18.9 percent"

end of quote.

Walter, my friend, you know damn well you do understand. You just don't want to admit the truth iof it.

I have been the model of tolerance, always rising above political sectariam matters to see those with whom I disagree as merely wrong, but otherwise OK.. Hell, I even like Blatham and he's a damn Canadian Socialist.

On the other hand you always find fault with whatever I post. Nothing I say here pleases you. I have feelings too! :wink:

Bernard, have you seen this graph:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

The concept of the sun's heat varying with time should seem to be a pretty much open / shut case. No complex theories to swallow. If you sit by a stove and turn up the stove, you become warmer. I would hope everyone could agree on that.

The problem I have with the greenhouse effect is that the manner that we understand a greenhouse does not really apply to the earth's atmosphere. A greenhouse is an atmosphere within an atmosphere. The earth and its atmosphere is surrounded by space, so therefore the same principles do not necessarily apply.

Okie you clearly do not understand the science. The graph you posted does not show the sun getting hotter. It shows the energy density at the surface of the earth, ie after the radiation has passed through the atmosphere, the same atmosphere that we are muckin about with.

If you don't think that tells us anything, heres a few more in this document to ponder over:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Then read the following and then come back here and tell me you understand everything about the atmosphere and what is going on. Its easy to understand, right? I think the scientists are very confused, not to mention us.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

It's nice that you use up to the date info okie. John L Daly died over 2 years ago and this article was written almost 10 years ago.

The hockey stick was debated, revised and is now accepted. Bringing up 10 year old arguments that are no longer valid doesn't make much sense. Maybe you should stick to current data. Scientists aren't confused. People that use old arguments are.