Some of the European countries are leaps and bounds a head of us. I saw an interview with a rep from Norway talking of their plans to be carbon neutral as their next objective as they are on task to meet their kyoto targets. Its quite impressive how it hasnt wrecked the economy of those countries as the detractors seem to always claim to say it will. Course I am sure Dowell will also call this part of the fascist socialist dogmatic plot. You know its always just some plot full of lies
 Ross Gelbspan |
  Hyper-Efficient Germans Vow 40 percent Cuts by 202029 Apr 07
The German Environment Ministry unveiled proposals that would lead Germany to become the world's most energy-efficient country. The Ministry proposed an eight-point plan that would cut Germany's CO2 emissions by 40 percent in 13 years.  |
Norway carbon neutral?
Submitted by Michael Smith (not verified) on Thu, 2007-05-03 11:49.
Good for Norway but becoming carbon neutral is going to be a real task for a country with its level of oil and gas revenues.
» reply
turn that frown upside down!
Submitted by Green Taliban (not verified) on Tue, 2007-05-01 10:42.
Since Germans are already well-accustomed to 11.6% unemployment, they'll hardly notice when it reaches 35-40%.
See? When the world gives you lemons -- make lemonade!
» reply
Germans "Efficient" and Also Like Sauerkraut!
Submitted by Green Taliban (not verified) on Tue, 2007-05-01 18:21.
Only an incisive muck-raker like Gelbspan could possibly alert us to the subtle suggestion that Germans are efficient. Speaking as a German, I am flattered.
Next he'll inform us that black people like fried chicken and Scots are thrify penny-pinchers.
But since Gelbspan has helpfully reminded us of certain worn-out cultural stereotypes, in a desperate attempt to make his point, he has overlooked the main reason the German government might well succeed in realising their draconian policy:
Germans like to follow orders.
» reply
Redefining prejudice
Submitted by Richard Littlemore on Thu, 2007-05-03 08:24.
The Oxford offers a couple of different definitions for prejudice, including the dry "preconceived opinion" or the more loaded "intolerance or discrimination against a person or group, esp. on annount of race."
I don't think that's quite where Ross started. When I say that the French make good wine and the Germans good cars, that's a matter of fact (or it was until the Australians and the Japanese recalibrated the standards). It seems to me that calling Germans efficient rises out of that kind of observation - a quite positive, if careless generalization.
Calling Germans sheep, on the other hand, invokes the excuses of Nuremburg and is offensive at pretty much every level.
Thinking that's funny would be like thinking anthropogenic climate change is unproven: it's forgiveable if done in good faith, but still ultimately regrettable.
» reply
Just what do you require for proof?
Submitted by Ian Forrester on Thu, 2007-05-03 14:36.
EH, what is it exactly that you require in the way of proof to be convinced that AGW is real and that it is having harmful effects? You people are always keen to criticize and put everyone down who do, in fact offer proof, so I would like to know two things:
Firstly, what level of proof would convince you?
Secondly, what gives you the audacity to be able to refute literally hundreds of thousands of scientists who, because of their training and knowledge, have shown over and over again that man is changing the climate at an unprecedented rate over the past 100 years?
Why don't you go and take some elementary science courses where the science behind AGW will be explained to you in simple terms. No new scientific laws have to be introduced to account for AGW. It is all covered in rather simple chemical, physical and biological parameters. What do you have against science and scientists that you hate them so much?
Ian Forrester
» reply
It is a very simple question
Submitted by Eco-Hitler (not verified) on Thu, 2007-05-03 21:47.
"You people are always keen to criticize and put everyone down who do ..."
No, I didn't do anything of the sort. I asked a very simple question.
" ... in fact offer proof"
Great. Then where is this proof?
"I would like to know two things"
Well, I would like to know only one thing: Where is the proof you claim to have?
"Secondly, what gives you the audacity to be able to refute ..."
I didn't refute anything. I asked a question: Where is your proof?
"... literally hundreds of thousands of scientists ...
Argumentum ad populum, and not an answer to the question. Where is this proof?
"... who, because of their training and knowledge ..."
Argument from authority. Again, not an answer to the question: Where is your proof?
"... have shown over and over again that man is changing the climate at an unprecedented rate over the past 100 years?"
You claim that the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been proven, yet fail to produce any evidence. My question, again: Then where is your proof?
"Why don't you go and take some elementary science courses where the science behind AGW will be explained to you in simple terms."
That's okay, Ian, I hold an advanced degree and have full confidence in my ability to comprehend, even if you don't. However, although I appreciate your condescending suggestion, the problem here resides not in my ability to understand -- rather, the problem is your continued evasiveness in answering my question: Where is this proof you claim to have?
"No new scientific laws have to be introduced to account for AGW."
That's nice, and since I wasn't asking for an explanation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that should make it all that much easier for you to answer my actual question: Where is the proof?
"It is all covered in rather simple chemical, physical and biological parameters."
All very elegant, I'm sure. However, you still seem to be investing a great deal of exertion in not providing any of this conclusive proof you claim exists for anthropogenic global warming.
So, after your bizarre detour, now back to my original question: Where is your proof?
» reply
Don't let out where you got your "advanced degree"
Submitted by Ian Forrester on Fri, 2007-05-04 05:58.
"I hold an advanced degree and have full confidence in my ability to comprehend, even if you don't". You could have fooled me!
EH, if I were you I wouldn't tell anyone where you got your advanced degree or in what subject it is in since the numbers of students wishing to apply there would drop significantly when they see the sort of person graduates from that department and institution.
You are nothing but a useless blowhard who knows nothing about anything. you must get very lonely sitting in your cave away from respectable society. Get a life.
Ever heard of the IPCC reports and the scientific literature? That is where the proof exists not your right wing "think" tanks.
Ian Forrester
» reply
Ya, ya, the Germans.