When London is submerged and New York is awash...

[Clarence_A]

"Winfield Hill" <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote
in message news:cs27je01k1v@drn.newsguy.com...

Clarence_A wrote...
Jonathan Kirwan wrote...

The EU is now powerful enough, economically, to dictate USA
policy whether we like it or not.

I agree, dealing with a dictatorial and totally irresponsible
government is very difficult. If they decide to "Dictate US
policy" the results will likely spell an end of the EU!

Wrong. They are following strictly-enforced fiscal
conservatism;
we are spending like there's no tomorrow, and with no attention
to
a disastrously-negative balance of trade. Plus now with GW
Bush,
no attention to government deficit spending either. Kindly
tell me
what makes you say _they_ are the ones facing disaster?
Arrogance
and wishful thinking? We MUST STOP spending more than we make,
as
a government, and as a country. And BTW if that means a
gasoline
tax, sheesh, then let's bring it on!

That explains the 30% plus unemployment and rampant welfare costs.
"I" do not spend more than I make, and save 20% or more of my net.

The pattern of the economy of the EU is one of descending into the
trap of committing to "entitlements" without resources to support
the programs.

If you want a Gasoline tax, just write a check to the government,
but do not expect everyone to agree with your twisted thinking!

The US has a lot going for it, too. But the US will spiral
down
hard if it imagines it can go it alone.

Of course I didn't say this, but you didn't read it correctly.

I agree, wake up Clarence, and smell the coffee!

Do not drink coffee, nor do I have any of your bad habits.

Yes, there are excesses in government in the US, but as more
people become aware of these problems they will be corrected.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 11 Jan 2005 20:03:58 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Clarence_A wrote...

Jonathan Kirwan wrote...

The EU is now powerful enough, economically, to dictate USA
policy whether we like it or not.

I agree, dealing with a dictatorial and totally irresponsible
government is very difficult. If they decide to "Dictate US
policy" the results will likely spell an end of the EU!

Wrong. They are following strictly-enforced fiscal conservatism;
we are spending like there's no tomorrow, and with no attention to
a disastrously-negative balance of trade. Plus now with GW Bush,
no attention to government deficit spending either. Kindly tell me
what makes you say _they_ are the ones facing disaster? Arrogance
and wishful thinking? We MUST STOP spending more than we make, as
a government, and as a country. And BTW if that means a gasoline
tax, sheesh, then let's bring it on!

The EU countries have all agreed (not that they are *doing* it as they should)
to keep their deficit spending at or below 3% of GNP. The US is deficit
spending at the rate of at least 4.8% of GNP now, maybe more. (That was 2003.)

The US has a lot going for it, too. But the US will spiral down
hard if it imagines it can go it alone.

I agree, wake up Clarence, and smell the coffee!

I never even saw his post until you quoted it -- luckily, I assume, you only
quoted a little.

I fully expect that the euro *will* replace the US dollar as the world reserve
currency, soon enough. And that will already be a disaster for the US -- an
inescapable result, though, considering our path now.

EU citizens and their leaders seriously see the EU as standing as a superpower
to match the US -- the "countervailing power"/"counterweight" thesis. Even as
close a friend to the US as Tony Blair said: "Look -- the United States is
plainly the superpower of the world today. But the argument is that a
single-power world is inherently unstable. I mean, that's the rationale for
Europe to unite. When we work together, the European Union can stand on par as
a superpower and a partner with the U.S. The world needs that right now."

Anyway, the EU cannot be ignored by the US. The EU does and has used its power
any number of times, already, against the US. On March 1, 2004, the EU
announced the first phase in of a new tariff schedule aimed at a broad range of
American products -- targeted exactly at those states in the US that GW Bush
needed in order to win the 2004 election. The tariffs were set to increase by
tens of millions of dollars __per month__ until Congress decided to change the
Foreign Sales Corporations Act of US tax code. The EU Trade Commissioner,
Pascal Lamy, was pretty blunt about the whole thing -- "The name of the game is
repeal of the U.S. law." Congress members were outraged, of course -- but they
had to acquiesce to EU pressure.

Just after 9/11 in the US, when EU support for the US was very high and given
without reservation, NATO invoked for the first time ever -- Article 5 of the
founding treaty, saying that an attack on one member is considered an attack on
all NATO nations! They largely supported the US invasion of Afghanistan and
worked hard to help out there. But after Bush's disastrous, unsupported (in the
EU) attack on Iraq, it is now the case that four of the EU countries (from
polling, Greece, Spain, Sweden and Finland) consider the USA to be not only a
threat to world peace, but the worst threat even surpassing Iran and North
Korea! In 1998, 78% of Germans had a favorable view of the US; in the wake of
Iraq, this fell to 38%. In France, such views fell from 62% in 1999 to 37% in
early 2004. In the UK, 55% now see the US as a real threat to global peace.

None of this bodes well for those in the US who imagine we can act with
omnipotent power and ignore the EU in the process. Our business practices and
tax law are already being rewritten by leaders in the EU and we've had to
retreat a number of times, with our tails between our legs. And our present
administration's bellicose behavior doesn't sell very well in the EU. I think
we'll be seeing a lot more of an invasive face of the EU sooner than later.

Jon

 

[Guy Macon]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Oh, we're having a dramatic, wet, sorta violent winter here in
California. We had pounding rain, hail, and lightning/thunder last
night, all rare here.

There is a huge difference between climate and weather.
Think of it this way -- it's like the difference between high
and low tide versus a particular breaker.

I once asked my lovely and talented wife to stand behing the car
and tell me if the turn signal was working. She said:

"It's working. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is..."

 

[Andrew Holme]

Guy Macon wrote:

Andrew Holme wrote:
No, but the USA consumes twice as much energy per capita.

Evidence, please.

2001 Energy use: kg oil equivalent per person:

[snip]
887.5 United States
862.1 Sweden
855.7 Germany
838.7 Neth. Antilles
819.6 Denmark
816.1 Switzerland
758.4 United Kingdom
[snip]

Those figures are _residential_ energy use per capita:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-634.html

In the technical note it says: "Residential use" includes all
consumption by households, excluding fuels used for transport.
Obviously, it doesn't include industry & commerce either.

The 2:1 ratio is from Table 1 on page 4 of this document:
http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/articles/World_development_and_Outlook,1820-2030.pdf
See "Primary energy consumption"

BTW - I was strongly influenced by two of the links you posted:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
I don't know who to believe now ...

 

[Andrew Holme]

Guy Macon wrote:

I find it annoying when someone makes claims such as
"the USA consumes twice as much energy per capita"
without bothering to look it up.

Guy, I wouldn't dare post something here without checking it on the web
first. The 2:1 figure came from this article:
http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/articles/World_development_and_Outlook,1820-2030.pdf

Since we're talking about carbon emissions, however; perhaps these
figures are more relevant:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~jhwalsh/wfsesr.html

 

fewer workers will be around to pay for it. A birth rate of, say, 1.2
per couple isn't good in the long term.

"Every German girl must realize that her highest duty is to become a
German mother" is not good in the long term either.

Any solution that suggests increasing birth rates is not a solution,
merely the exacerbation of a much worse problem.

 

[Guy Macon]

Andrew Holme wrote:

Guy, I wouldn't dare post something here without checking it on the web
first. The 2:1 figure came from this article:
http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/articles/World_development_and_Outlook,1820-
2030.pdf

My apologies for that, and for citing residential figures. Clearly
transportation should be included as well. Sorry about that.

 

[nospam]

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

But as per my reply in
news:a5v9u0lsvt7jncr1ckbbpfliiu02gva71c@4ax.com
I thought Jonathan's sources were convincing too, especially the last
at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

makes an interesting read on the 'Scientific Consensus'.

It seems all the models predicting doom assume a positive feedback effect
from increasing carbon dioxide levels. As an engineer the notion that there
is any significant net positive feedback the earth's climate system is
ridiculous. The earth's climate has been like a pin balanced on it's point
for millions of years and 'we' are going to knock it over in the next few
decades - yeah right.

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:26:43 GMT,
Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote
in Msg. <79_Ed.10463$5R.112@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>

However, generally the quality of life is poor, as is the
Healthcare!

What do you know about the "general" quality of live in a place as diverse
as Europe?

Socialized medical care, which some call "single
payer insurance" has always been a limiting system, with only
basic services covered, no improvements are possible and many
needed services are often unavailable.

Which services do you believe are covered, and which aren't? This, by the
way, also varies greatly across the continent.

--D.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

But as per my reply in
news:a5v9u0lsvt7jncr1ckbbpfliiu02gva71c@4ax.com
I thought Jonathan's sources were convincing too, especially the last
at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

makes an interesting read on the 'Scientific Consensus'.

It seems all the models predicting doom assume a positive feedback effect
from increasing carbon dioxide levels. As an engineer the notion that there
is any significant net positive feedback the earth's climate system is
ridiculous. The earth's climate has been like a pin balanced on it's point
for millions of years and 'we' are going to knock it over in the next few
decades - yeah right.

I'll study that properly when I have time, but at a quick read Richard
S. Lindzen , Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology sounds
authoritative. Presumably this implies that he did not contribute one
of the 928 abstracts over 7 years used as evidence for the consensus
described in
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

EXTRACT:
"928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords 'climate change'.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position.
Of the 928 papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either
explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position."

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:31:17 GMT,
Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote
in Msg. <VwaFd.1036$8Z1.12@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>

Which is why I was not specific. There is not only poor over all
service, it is inconsistent!

OK, inconsistency aside, in what way is European health service "poor over
all"?

--Daniel

 

[Reg Edwards]

Many contributions to this thread about earth-warming and floods.

But not a single comment about what more-profitable uses can be found for US
taxation of its citizens which is being frittered away to continue an
already lost 13 year-old war in Iraq.

The lives of 2000 young innocent US soldiers have already been wasted, plus
another 10,000 seriously maimed and injured. Plus casualties from 'friendly
fire'. Is the oil worth it?

 

[SioL]

"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message news:10ua1gk6jhpnd63@corp.supernews.com...

I find it annoying when someone makes claims such as
"the USA consumes twice as much energy per capita"
without bothering to look it up.

The US and Canada could use a nice 20% reduction
in per capita energy use, but asking us to get below
Uzbekistan, Slovenia and Nigeria is unrealistic.

Have you ever been in Slovenia and have you ever read anything
about it?

I also find it annoying when someone makes claims without bothering to look it up.

Here, educate yourself from CIA factbook (although this resource often lacks updating
and is more/less outdated):

Slovenia, with its historical ties to Western Europe, enjoys a GDP per capita substantially higher than that of the other
transitioning economies of Central Europe. In March 2004, Slovenia became the first transition country to graduate from borrower
status to donor partner at the World Bank. Privatization of the economy proceeded at an accelerated pace in 2002-03, and the budget
deficit dropped from 3.0% of GDP in 2002 to 1.6% in 2003. Despite the economic slowdown in Europe in 2001-03, Slovenia maintained 3%
growth.

This is a good link, too:
http://www.slovenia-tourism.si/?lng=2&id_country=1


SioL

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 12 Jan 2005 06:09:26 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:

fewer workers will be around to pay for it. A birth rate of, say, 1.2
per couple isn't good in the long term.

"Every German girl must realize that her highest duty is to become a
German mother" is not good in the long term either.

How about tackling the problem from the other end of the spectrum and
encouraging pensioners to 'quit stinking up the joint' after say 5
years' (max) of (publicly-funded) retirement and telling them their
highest duty is to FOAD and not be a burdon on the state?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[SioL]

"SioL" <Sio_spam_L@same.net> wrote in message news:1dcFd.8287$F6.1419350@news.siol.net...

Slovenia, with its historical ties to Western Europe, enjoys a GDP per capita substantially higher than that of the other
transitioning economies of Central Europe. In March 2004, Slovenia became the first transition country to graduate from borrower
status to donor partner at the World Bank. Privatization of the economy proceeded at an accelerated pace in 2002-03, and the
budget deficit dropped from 3.0% of GDP in 2002 to 1.6% in 2003. Despite the economic slowdown in Europe in 2001-03, Slovenia
maintained 3% growth.

This is a good link, too:
http://www.slovenia-tourism.si/?lng=2&id_country=1

Forgot this one:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/slovenia/
Rich in resources, naturally good looking and persistently peaceful, Slovenia has been doing just fine since its break from the
former Yugoslavia in 1991. No longer the undiscovered, bargain gem that it was, Slovenia still remains a wonderful antidote to much
of Europe's crowds and high prices.

Many of its cities and towns bear the imprint of the Habsburg Empire and the Venetian Republic, while up in the Julian Alps you'd
almost think you were in Bavaria. The relative affluence of this country on the 'sunny side of the Alps' is immediately apparent.

Except for a brief period in June and July 1991 when Yugoslavia attempted forcibly to prevent Slovenia from leaving its fold,
there's been no fighting, no war and no terrorism in Slovenia. While Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo became embroiled in the
bitterest conflict in Europe since WWII, Slovenes got on with making a good fist of their independence and keeping out of the
limelight.



SioL

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 11 Jan 2005 20:03:58 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Wrong. They are following strictly-enforced fiscal conservatism;

Er, no they're not. Far from it.
The spending limits are regularly breached by france, Italy, Belgium
and Germany to name but a few. You just don't get to hear about it;
that's all. The framework under which the Euro was set up was indeed
strict, however the observance of it is anything but. In fact the
whole project was crystalised at a point in time of political
expedience, *not* economic conformity and stability. It is a lot like
a cake with poorly-mixed ingredients. It cannot now be unbaked.
Some day the whole, rotten facade will come unravelled. God help the
developed economies if that occurs after this crock of sh*t has been
adopted as the world's principal reserve currency.
I sincerely hope we in Britain have nothing to do with it - ever.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Reg Edwards]

90 percent of French electricity is very sensibly produced by clean atomic
power and hydro-electric means. They even sell it abroad. The Japanese are
running along the same lines. The Chinese and Indian sub-continent cannot be
far behind in their intentions.

Iran, although sitting on oil, is being held back for foreign political
reasons.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:

"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:35:30 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <qtgau096q4jteqjhb61dla4vbgcmkjvkt9@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[Just a frivolous post to get this citation into my retrievable
records]

I usually do that by using the "reply to" and then editing the "to:"
address to send myself an e-mail.

Just a suggestion for an easier way.

--

I use Eudora for E-mail, so I've never bothered to set up Agent for
that... but I'll look into it... Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <qtgau096q4jteqjhb61dla4vbgcmkjvkt9@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

[Just a frivolous post to get this citation into my retrievable
records]

I usually do that by using the "reply to" and then editing the "to:"
address to send myself an e-mail.

Just a suggestion for an easier way.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge