Saturday, 17 March 2012

The Hun at your feet?

Jonathan Freedland's piece in the Guardian this morning opens the possibility of a third state of German Sein to modify Churchill's dictum that 'The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet'; he seems to suggest they can also be at your throat whilst doing a good job of pretending they're at your feet.

But take heart; it can't last. Germany's dependence on high-tech engineering - selling the tools to make machine tools to China - has a finite life, as China builds its own machines to make the tools to make machine tools. The profits are narrowing for big Pharma, too, as they're running out of ailments to make drugs for. On the creative side they're weak. The last German art movement of note was Expressionism in the 1930s, the only music of the last half century was Nina with her short lived red balloons and Hollywood isn't beating a path to Augsberg to do green screen and post-production. Bratwurst and cabbage simply don't cut it on the international foodie stage and even the Belgians brew better beer. They've also fallen for the anthropogenic climate change myth like Parsifal was revealed in a mystic forest engaged in a nude picnic, and are wasting billions on snake-oil 'sustainability' remedies. So don't feel too anxious.

19 comments:

okjoe58 said...

ha ha thanks for that, cheered me up before i set off for work .. however, in germany there's less crime, more honesty and the streets are clean!

DeeDee99 said...

I can't agree that the Belgians make better beer; German beer is vastly superior.

Perhaps, when the Germans are less able to rely on their high-tech manufacturing, they will rediscover and reinvigorate their cultural talent. After all, a significant proportion of the great composers were German - they're just not terribly good at churning out pop or rock that anyone wants to listen to (partly because their language isn't suited to it).

I feel just a little bit sorry for ordinary Germans (I have several German friends). They are a polite, well-mannered but easily controlled lot and they have no discernable sense of humour. For all their economic success, I'd much rather be a bit poorer and have my English disrespect for self-important authority and my British sense of humour.

Greg Tingey said...

Readwald
You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this crypto-racist tripe.
It's 66+ years since WWII ended, and you are still recycling this sort of lying rubbish.

And Hi-tech manufacturing still has a long way to go.
As we have finally rediscovered, so that's complete rubbish as well.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to my "cultural" annual tripo in July ( dancing, a tiny bit of tourism, and reasonable quantities of BEER!

G. Tingey said...

Oh yes, WRONG again:
They've also fallen for the anthropogenic climate change myth

Look up Berkeley climate change survey/review or similar.

A noted AGW non-believer (so to speak) was FUNDED BY THE KOCHS to head up a new investiagtion, so as to "prove" that it was a "scam"
It all fell apart, and the report now says that AGW is almost certainly real, and GW IS real.
So embarassing, that.

I refer you again to "Nature's Calendar"

Edward Spalton said...

I can offer at least one example of the German sense of humour. During the BSE (Mad Cow Disease) epidemic, I met a German vet who was on holiday. We talked of this and that.

I asked him why it was that British cows were succumbing to this disease but not those in Germany and elsewhere on the continent. After all, feed ingredients and processing were all to a common standard.

"The Cherman farmer does not have BSE" he said "because he has JCB".

Elby the Beserk said...

Recommended reading for Tingey

1. Chill, by Peter Taylor, which examines all the variables the IPCC models exclude from their processing, and decides we need to dress up warm for a few decades.

2. Ian Plimer's excellent history of climate on the earth, "Heaven and Earth". This will tell poor deluded Greg that it was warmer during the MWP - red wine being made in Norther Britain and Greenland being farmed. Indeed. Greenland was 6 degrees centigrade warmer in the MWP than now. How can that be?

3. AW Montford's destruction of the Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick tripe.

Greg you head in the sand eejit, global temperature (and WHAT is that? Think about it eh?) has reduced by 0.6c since 1998. That takes the increase of .7 from 1850 down to .1 degrees. Now - add an error factor of +/-.5 degrees, and it may be we are now COOLER not warmer.

Also - trillions have been pissed away on AGW. Tat's money that could have gone to helping the third world - reducing disease, cleaning water, education, development.

And do you know what happens to developed countries? Yup - their birth rates go down - which is a real RESULT.

The Warmer cult has been exposed for the crock of shit it is. With people like Monbiot and Gleick championing your cause, I' amazed you even put your neck over the parapet.

Greg Tingey said...

Elby the Berserk:
Out of date & not even wrong.

I am quite aware of natural climate variations and the Medieval warm period - and so are the scientists.
In fact it's one reason for the worry - we -should expect it to be cooling, or at least remaining level - and it isn't.

I REALLY suggest you look up the Berkely study - remember that it was fuinded by the anti-AGW brigade, including the Kochs.
But it got a resul they didn't want - it agreed with the scientific majority.
How sad & oops.

Ditto "Nature's Calendar - a mass-observation project with tens of thousands of recorders (I'm one) who note easiy-observed seasonal changes. Because of the huge dataset, error-bars are very small.
My own observations on growing plants suggest to me that it is getting warmer, whatever the cause.Final advice:
Follow the money, the really big oiland ultra-right-wing US-funded money who want to try to deny GW for their gain & our ruination.

Whay do you want to be tools of these corrupt crooks is another question entirely.

Now, please examine some facts, rather than crypto-fascist propaganda (THe Kochs really are very unpleasant people)

Mike Spilligan said...

Sorry to be late for this party.
Mr Tingey: It's no use referring vaguely to some Berkeley study, after all there have been so many, from many quarters. What matters is that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has anything but a trivial effect on the global temperature, and there is no empirical evidence that that would be harmful. If you think differently please quote sources with proper references and dates.

G. Tingey said...

Milligan
GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND
Look it up
And there is a vast amount of empirical evidence.
Just because you have been gulled into believing it isn't there, will not do.
Try starting here:
https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=richard+muller+berkeley+global+warming&oq=berkeley+gloabl+waming&aq=3lm&aqi=g-l2g-lm4&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=1719l16031l1l24141l24l24l1l2l2l0l297l3531l0.16.5l21l0&gs_l=hp.1.3.0i13l2j0i13i5l4.1719l16031l1l24141l24l24l1l2l2l0l297l3531l0j16j5l21l0.llsin.&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=d436cc22c3480bd0&biw=1222&bih=709

G. Tingey said...

To which I amy add ....
I remind you all that the "Berkeley Study" I'm referring to was COMMISSIONED BY the "unbelievers" (or unwitting tools of the Kochs, if you will!) to help disprove AGW.
VERY unfortunately, for them, the results agreed with the concensus of scientific results and investigation - AGW is true.
Very embarassing - and recent - more recent than any of the sources you've quoted.

Oh, someone mentioned Monbiot.
Who has shown his ability to accept EVIDENCE ...
He has come to the conclusion, (correctly in my opinion) that his previous stance against civil Nuclear Power was wrong, and that we need the stuff - for the next 50 years, at least.

Now - can you anti-AGW's show such ability to face facts?

Anonymous said...

G Tingey: "Now - can you anti-AGW's show such ability to face facts?"

Fact. It was much much much cooler in the UK in times past.

Fact. The duration of the cold period permitted glaciation across the entirety of what is now the UK.

Fact. The glacial period literally shaped the whole of what is now the British Isles. Not only with regard to climate but actual geography and geology too.

Fact. The change in temperature from the milenia long arctic sub zero temperatures during the last ice age to the much more mild temperatures today exceeds by far anything the AGW scare merchants are trying to scare us with.

Fact. Ice age - intra glacial warming is a cyclical system.

Scare. 1/2 a degree in a century.

Fact. is within the margin of error in such a complicated system.

Fact. Never ever, do the AGW loons discuss global warming in positive terms, it's always the supposedly disastrous consequences that we are threatened with.

Fact. The whole of the North Polar ice cap could melt and it would make NOT ONE millimeter difference to the level of the sea.

Supposition: Polar bears don't need the cold to live. They are adapted to suvive in the cold, but in the unlikely event that the whole north polar Ice cap did melt, enough Polar bears cold be left to live on the Greenland land mass to avoid extinction.

Fact. It doesn't really matter if the Polar Bears do actually die out. In the billions of years left before the Sun explodes, there is probably enough time for another species to evolve that would fill the same ecological niche formerly occupied by the polar bears.

Elby the Beserk said...

Tingey,

Did you enjoy Muller's trashing of Mann's Hockey Stick.

And of course, BEST as yet has only covered the continental part of a planet that is, what is it, 70% water?

Also - you are clearly an expert - how do you account for the current cooling given that CO2 is still rising? How do you account for the Mediaevel, Roman and Minoan warm periods, all warmer than today - yet with next to no human CO2.

Were you aware that the IPCC models do not take account of many variables CRITICAL in climate - cloud, solar energy, cosmic rays for starters? Are you aware of the fact that when Arctic ice decreases, Antarctic ice increases, and has done for millenia? Are you aware that the Arctic was warmer in the 40s, and indeed, that a US sub surfaced at the North Pole in '58 & '59? Are you also aware that you possess many of the attributes of the the Creationists?

Think for yourself. If you can?

G. Tingey said...

I used to be a trained scientist and Engineer.
I know how conclusions of this sort are arrived at.
You plainly don't.

Elby mentions Muller, which is interesting.
VERY UNFORTUNATELY, Muller is the pricipal author of the Berkeley report I'm mentioning. That's right, Muller is now saying that AGW is real.
WAKE UP AT THE BACK, THERE!

Anonymous.
Don't be silly!

OF course I know about climate cyles and the Medieval warm period.
We are now at an equivalent point to the height of that period - but we shouldn't be.
What is causing that similarity, that should not be there?
The prferred answer, by the Royal Society, and every major scientific institution, based on LOTS of research is - AGW.

I base my opinion on the evidence collected - including that which I contribute to - incidentally I noted another marker today - saw my first Queen Wasp about - and have noted it.
Again, I refer readers to "Nature's Calendar".

Anonymous said...

"I used to be a trained scientist and Engineer.
I know how conclusions of this sort are arrived at.
You plainly don't."

Yep, that's just the sort of attitude which pervades the whole sorry subject. One, which makes a claque of ill trained climatologist and computer techie numpties believe in man made warming - they'll believe anything the politicians tell them to.

BTW - MMCO2 does not equal GW - that supposition died the death long ago.

okjoe58 said...

it started with a laugh and ended with a yawn

Anonymous said...

G. Tingey: "We are now at an equivalent point to the height of that period - but we shouldn't be."

How can you possibly make such an assertion without bursting into hysterical laughter?

The whole weather/climate system is extraordinarily complex, it interacts with a myriad of internal and external factors. Not least, and odd that it should be necessary to state, but the Sun is the most significant influence on global temperatures.

We are or have been in a period of low solar activity, which may be impacting our atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent.

Other extra terrestrial influences are implicated in cloud cover and have a bearing on temperature.

G. Tingey: "but we shouldn't be."

We have at best twenty years of direct observation, some rather sketchy extrapolation of data from rather tenuous indicators of prehistoric global temperatures, from which you stand up on your hind legs and try to tell us how the global weather systems should be behaving.

That is a joke, actually.

G. Tingey said...

Yes at least you acknowledge that it is VERY complicated.

I note no-one at all has deigned to notice that Muller, who WAS ant-AGW has now changed his opinions, based on the evidence.
So embarassing that.

ANd why (oh why oh why?) are you so keen to follow the propaganda put about by the likes of the Kochs and Exxon, please?

Anonymous said...

G Tingey: "I note no-one at all has "

I note you have not acknowledged there may* be extra terrestrial influences that may* be of much greater significance that anthropogenic Carbon diOxide.

The diurnal temperature variation at the extremes can often as much as 100 degrees, yet AGW fanatics rarely acknowledge that 99% of the solar energy that hits the earth in the daytime is radiated out into space at night.

You have noticed its cold at night?

Even with hypotheses such as the AGM CO2 greenhouse effect, AGW fanatics still only project a one degree per century rise in temperature.

To my mind that is within the margin for error and could largely be accounted for as noise in the model.

Finally, if the feedback loop in the atmosphere was positive, it wouldn't have taken ten billion years and a couple of factories to cause it to go critical..

Terra atmospherics are very stable, the feedback systems are negative and the equilibrium is well established.

Over geological history it has tolerated enormous meteor strikes and recovered.

We are witnessing Mt Etna throwing huge amounts of relatively harmless CO2, much less harmless Sulfur compounds and lots of dust into the atmosphere, oddly no one from the Global Warming camp seems to have suggested, so far as I can see, that there may be global warming as a result.

The global warming doctrine is not a scientific hypothesis, the science is no more settled than the theory that the earth was flat or that when it was finally conceded to be a spheroid, that the sun rather than earth was at the center of the solar system.

It may be described as an theory rather like Christianity or Islam, as it requires no testing to verify its doctrinal assertions rather, like Christianity or Islam requires blind faith and mystical ceremonies by the high priests at the CRU. Well those guys have been well and truly defrocked. Much of their models and supposedly supporting data discredited.


* See being conciliatory.

Anonymous said...

He He, The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo released more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere the all human habitation over the last 100,00 years. Are we affecting the environment? yes, most assuredly. will our effects destroy the earth?most assuredly not. In another 100,00 years the signs of our habitation will most likely be unnoticeable.