« Berlin 1953: Never Forget | Main | German Diplomats to the Front! »

Comments

"The scientific whiz that he is, Bush is happy to note that America's so-called "greenhouse gas intensity" is going down. In other words, the amount of CO2 released per product manufactured is less than before. A third grader could tell you that this is a disingenuous subterfuge to avoid having to face global climate realities."
The USA is reducing it's greenhouse intensity....but a 3rd grader could explain this? How about a scientist talking about the fact that if China and India are not held to the same standards...CO2 levels will NEVER go down! How about an economist telling you that the US economy will be bankrupt if we follow the Kyoto treaty. If we followed it it would not reduce CO2 levels...and we would become a 3rd world nation. Prehaps that is what others in the world want!

Ray D:

I would change your third suggestion from "it sounds like biased propaganda" to "it IS biased propaganda."

Also your first suggestion, "go back to journalism school," makes me wonder if that would do any good. It seems like concepts such as impartiality and objectiveness are becoming extinct in most major media. Might that be because journalism schools don't teach them anymore?

Well I hate to tell you this but Mexico and the US are conspiring to increase the CO2 levels as we speak,(Starts foaming at the mouth). There are two factories, one in Washington state, and one near Mexico city, that will do the damage. The one in Washington state we call St. Helens and it's productive as all heck, ( starts scratching right ear with left hind foot). I can't remember the other one, sorry. Oh, and let's not forget Europe's factory, I think it's called Etna? We get sulphur emissions from them also. How do I get Spiegel's phone #?

Isn't it amazing that a man who supposed to be so dumb (Bush) can be so diabolically clever as to maintain a dozen or so complex conspiracies without slipping up? Amazing...

As for CO2, it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's increasing. The idea that CO2 increase causes global warming is a THEORY, and there's been recent evidence that global warming is causing the CO2 increase, not the other way around.

Besides, the CO2 theory doesn't explain the global warming on Mars. Increase in CO2 caused by global warming (as an effect of unusual solar activity) explains both.

" Eurosnob readership"

pretty much

Great idea to post a link to the CNN article! So readers can compare the different standards of writing by themselves.

I am afraid, that you are wrong, Ray. The bias already starts in journalism schools.

The same with the teachers and professors at school and universities. Nuclear weapons out of Germany is a big subject of discussion. Rumsfeld was arrogant again when he was in Brüssel? I read the transcripts and found nothing. But the teacher of my son's high school heard it on Phoenix, so it must be true. It is getting worse and worse. This new generation is dreaming of a strong Europe, stronger than the US. There is no own positive attitude behind it, any positive European feeling. Just a wild desire to be member of something more important than the US.


@Amihasser:
Your entry was the most intelligent comment made by a member of of the anti-American left I've read so far! Congratulations! I find it really convincing when people like you portray American (and German) conservatives as uneducated and primitive. I just hope every leftist will reach your level of sophistication one day.


At least the American media tries to have some modicum of objectivity.

Are there any German liberals or media critics who are embarrassed by this shameless display? Surely they must realize that their message is cheapened by such low-grade hack work.

I'm curious if there's any self-regulating voice of reason out there in "Spiegel" land

Oh, I just love it!

Editing of a report = wrong doing.

What we have here are critics that claim the editing of a climate report was done to underplay the climate problems. What if I turn it around? Editing of the report was done to prevent overplaying the effect of greenhouse gasses.

http://www.junkscience.com/

So perhabs you like the comments of british politicians more about the US government and global warming.

LD Norman Baker branded George W Bush the environment's "public enemy number one"

Tony Blair has got no influence on Bush when it comes to climate change," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4102144.stm

While we can talk about if the word vasalle should be used and i would agree that it is nonsense and has nothing in common with reality.

But the facts are true.

Blair wanted to show his influence in washington on the issue of global warming at his last visite.
He failed.
To deny the existence of global warming as the Bush administration does is irresponsible.
Bush is a fundamentalist on that issue and not able think about future consequenses.

""To deny the existence of global warming as the Bush administration does is irresponsible.""

Please support this statement with a link or two. Thanks.

""""Bush's top science adviser, John Marburger, said he is "impatient and frustrated" with such charges, because the administration is seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through technological advances and other voluntary measures.

"From the beginning, this administration has ACKNOWLEDGED the Earth is getting warmer and we're going to have to take responsibility for our emissions," Marburger said. Critics claim the White House believes "climate change is not happening, which is NOT TRUE."

Several officials involved in the negotiations said NONE of the document's wording is fixed, and it could change before the leaders adopt a final version for the summit. Connaughton emphasized that the administration's suggested changes address the threat of rising temperatures and offer several proposals to mitigate climate change as well as air pollution.

"We are looking for economy of expression in a leadership text," he said.""""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601666.html

CNN and the Washington Post providing BOTH sides of the story?!

Somebody pinch me.

Global warming seem to be an undeniable fact. However, what is not yet a proven fact is the cause of it. It could simply be periodical phenomina or the result of purely natural causes. Scientists are still at odds on this issue which is often colored by a political desire to weaken U.S. industrial output.

Der Spiegel is so far left that it is in danger of being compared with PRAVDA of Cold War days. Other mass media in Germany are not far behind. What is deperately needed in that country is mass media competition from conservative sources.

Along those lines, I should point out that with the Internet, it was middle-of-the-road FOX NEWS which started an evolution into more political balance by the U.S. media in general. Almost immediately, the average "John-Doe" U.S. citizen actually fled from watching the established leftist Media in favor of FOX NEWS. The latter is still holding the highest record in the number of daily cable news viewers.

So, the answer is more and varied news competition in Germany. This is badly needed in addition to the laudatory efforts of MEDIENKRITK and PI in their battle against disinformation and pure leftist propaganda.

Peter P. Haase
Boca Raton, Florida

@james W

"is seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through technological advances and other voluntary measures."

When did Mr marburger last time checked the record of the US on that issue. When does that period of technological advances and reduction start in the US. I belive not until 2008.


"Critics claim the White House believes "climate change is not happening, which is NOT TRUE."


I thought that this is the goal of the Bush admininistration or why should this poor Mr cooney had to do all this work with "changing" ( evil people would say manipulating) the official scientific reports on that issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/science/07cnd-climate.html
you must register but i can post the whole article if you refuse to sign up to a left wing paper like this. But you know that topic at all i guess.

You want a link about the existence i show you one about the existence and the reaction of the Bush administration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1375089.stm

@ anonymous,

Don't forget that it isn't only Bush who rejects agreements like Kyoto, the entire Senate, Republicans AND Democrats voted unanimously to reject Kyoto: 95-0

If you even care, here is a link explaining the Bush administration's position and here is another more recent link on the President's environmental policy.

Isn't it nice to actually be able to see this? After all, the German media never even mentions the Bush administration's position. He is just an environmental world enemy to them. And I thought Bush saw the world in black and white...

@no name (are you afraid some evil right-winger is going to hunt you down, or something?)

Well, anyway...

The link you posted proved absolutely nothing in favor of your statement that the Bush administration denies global warming. In fact, it gives an example of the opposite.

""Responding to the report, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said Mr Bush "takes extremely seriously what we do know about climate change, which is essentially that there is warming taking place".""

I'd be more than happy to reply to your other comments as soon as you provide me a quote that supports your premise. So far, I lead 2-0. Your turn.

BTW, I'm registered with many lefty rags, including the NYT. Sometimes, I even visit the AlJazeera website. Got to know what the enemy is up to.

Further reading for 'no name':

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10331130

""""Taxpayers will be at least $1 billion worse off under revised Government estimates of the costs of the Kyoto treaty to combat global warming.

National's environment spokesman, Nick Smith, says the party, if elected, will consider pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, despite the cost to New Zealand's international reputation, given the "hammering" the economy will take under the latest numbers. "It's a huge stuff-up."""""

Have you seen the Kyoto count up?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

It's apparent that not everybody is satisfied with the cost compared to the benefit ratio of Kyoto. According to JunkScience.com this ratio represents "about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could THEORETICALLY lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C." (emphasis added by me)

BTW 'no name', the United States spends $2 billion a year on global warming research, and $3 billion a year on alternative energy research. The US invests more money in this research than any other country in the world--I have no problem with this considering our energy use. But, how will China and India compare?

Check out the rest of the article 'The Kyoto Count Up'--and the website itself. It's packed full of information on the environmental 'scare'.

It's a waste of time to debate the global warning issue, because global warning is not really an issue here at all. The real issue is the relentless efforts by a bunch of deluded Euro-Leftists to to dictate the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. Their anti-democratic propaganda and lust for power are currently far more dangerous than any global warming that might or might not exist.

if I were British I would bee deeply offended
But in the British press Blair is known as "Bush's Poodle". I would say the majority of the Brits believe him dishonest. That is why Labour lost over 100 seats in the last election.
Blair and his cabinet knew - as we have seen from the authenticated documents - that the Americans had no plans for Iraq post-invasion, yet Blair took his country to war despite this knowledge, and the people will never forgive him for it. Who would do such a reckless thing? Only a vassal...

""""Blair and his cabinet knew - as we have seen from the authenticated documents - that the Americans had no plans for Iraq post-invasion, yet Blair took his country to war despite this knowledge, and the people will never forgive him for it.""""

What?! Absolutely no plans?! You want me to believe that the US goes to war with a country without ANY plans for the aftermath? Earth calling Abe...Come in Abe.

The plans may not have been sufficient to satisfy everybody; but, then again, since when can you satisfy everybody--especially the left?

What I don't understand is why is it so difficult for the peaceniks to understand that a perfect war plan just doesn't exist? With that said, the US has conducted the war on terror to a standard unmatched by any military in the past. A standard that is not imposed or expected from their enemies. Oh, I forgot,"we expect more from the US blah, blah, blah..... Bullshit!

And if plans to fight wars rarely survive first contact with the enemy, how about plans for what to do _after_ wars? Frankly, the "bureaucratic imperfection" objection to the war was to me by far the most frivolous; how about the bureaucratic white-paper for how to deal with Saddam & Sons had we not fought the war?

Thousands of trees executed, their bodies smashed to pulp and covered with ink, for what? To publish Spiegel. Mass murderers!

@ Abe:

You write:

and the people will never forgive him for it. Who would do such a reckless thing? Only a vassal...

So is that why he was re-elected by a wide margin? What, do you expect him to win an enormous land-slide every time?

And a vassal? Does that make Schroeder Chirac's vassal? That is just a ridiculous and insulting term that people who are losing the ideological battle feel compelled to resort to. Sad but true.

Ah, yes Abe you surely must be German. You lack of knowledge qualifies you to be one even if you are not.

Blair was only the third PM to win a third term in modern British history. He is the first third consecutive term PM for the Labor Party.

The 67 seats are more than all but two British administrations from 1950 to 1983 have had to work with.

Iraq was less of an issue that the German M$M would like for you to believe. Additionally, one needs to identify just what media is using what terms.

Now to the members of the axis of weasels. Do you actually think Jacko of france and his boil Gerhart are going to win third terms?

Well if you do, then I guess you are drinking the same kool aid that Hans so enjoys.


"CNN actually mentions both sides of the debate! What a novel concept!"

Thats so funny. LOL

I was watching the footy last night on TV and at half time they had the Nachrichten on. This was ZDF. The Germans had played an awful first half and were lucky to still be at 0-0 as Tunisia were really kicking ass. Well the sports reporters were of course pro germany but even they were willing to give the other side now and again, to voice some self criticism and analysis... sadly this isnt the case for the news. There were 2 stories. EU and Iran. Both reports merely sang the government position. In the EU story Britain and Blair were putting the EU in crisis after bullying the French. Germany supports France. Germany agriculture also wants subsidy. Britain was depicted as greedily holding on to its money. There was no description of why. No analysis, no critricism just a greedy anti-EU Tony Blair. How ironic. The next news story was about the practice of democracy in Iran. Im sure you can all guess the line taken on that one..

always watch the second half, old donut boy...

@grzmlsfs

"always watch the second half, old donut boy..."

I always do, I even watch the highlights too. In fact if I am live at the match I usually wait until the warm down has finished :-)

1. The proposed "solution" to "Global Warming" is Socialist Europes whiney bait and switch attempt to do to the world what it is attempting to do to the newer, more dynamic, faster growing, capitalist economies of Eastern Europe? (ie...standardize taxation around the world to protect their advantage and welfare state)

2. If Blair is Bush's "poodle" what should we call Schroeder's not insignificant and continuous licking of Chirac's boots?

Abe posts:

"if I were British I would bee deeply offended
But in the British press Blair is known as "Bush's Poodle". I would say the majority of the Brits believe him dishonest. That is why Labour lost over 100 seats in the last election.
Blair and his cabinet knew - as we have seen from the authenticated documents - that the Americans had no plans for Iraq post-invasion, yet Blair took his country to war despite this knowledge, and the people will never forgive him for it. Who would do such a reckless thing? Only a vassal..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A couple of questions Abe:

1. What was the detailed post-invasion master plan that was instituted in Europe after WWII ?

2. Do the British also consider Churchill and Montgomery American vassels?

3. Do you know what year the Marshall Plan began? And why?


This is my problem with the anti-Ami
"progressives" and their emotional statements. They just never wear well in the light of day.

The ilk that resort to calling blair a poodle or vassel seem to know what they hate ~ they just don't seem to know why they hate, and they certainly don't articulate it very well.

A single question tends to send them reeling and then, like a deer in the headlights, a look of fear creeps across their face and suddenly I am being called names too!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31