'Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming'
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm
"Chicken Little?" - not exactly minding words!
|
I'll be interested to see the political fallout on this one.
Does this also mean that investors should look to other car makers, to develop new-generation engines (ie non-fossil fuel)? There is a definite demand in the market for greener and greener cars - I would think that the City would thus find Jolissaint's words very interesting. Perhaps Daimler-Chrysler can expect a slip in share value shortly.
|
|
Sounds like a reputable source.
|
|
It won't matter, they've got the design for the zero-emissions, 200bhp engine that runs on old banana peel in their secure vault, they're just waiting for the right time to launch it ;-)
|
Is this the Chrysler whose own forecasting systems enabled them to end 2006 with over 750,000 unsold vehicles in stock?
Yes.
And this company is daring to criticise climate forecasting? Yes
Well I suppose he is correct cos for sure as Chrysler can't forecast their own sales in a year, they certainly can't forecast the weather.
I treat all forecasts as a measure of the credibility of the forecaster. As far as I can see, Chrysler have zero credibility in forecasting so I treat their comments on others' forecats with that same credibility: i.e. none.
madf
|
Is this the Chrysler whose own forecasting systems enabled them to end 2006 with over 750,000 unsold vehicles in stock? Yes.
how sure are you of your figures / facts ?
I've managed to dig out
"Separately, during its monthly sales conference call with media, Chrysler reported a 0.5 percent gain in December sales compared to a year ago and said it had reduced its sales bank -- vehicles that are not built to meet dealer orders -- to below 10,000 units, down from about 140,000." from this source
www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007010...8
Back to the topic - the Americans have a much different approach to pollution & the enviroment to us. Typically, in europe the bad guy is CO2, but in America the baddie is NoX.
MTC
|
|
CO2 is the more 'natural' gas right? I know diesels make a lot of NOX
|
CO2 is the more 'natural' gas right? I know diesels make a lot of NOX
Thats the one. The Americans see CO2 as being a natural product that is created by nature and who's volume rises and falls - with mans input being minimal.
But they consider NOX to be a truly evil manmade product that needs to be brought under control.
They accuse europe of burying its head in the sand on this issue and ignoring NOX, whilst at the same time accumulating vast amounts of additional taxation, on the pretext of doing something about CO2 emissions - something that they claim would find its own level naturally.
MTC
|
Would it be fair to say that they have a point?
Although I seem to recall that NOX also comes from fissures in the ground from the earth's magma?
|
We all have an axe to grind and I guess if I was responsible for a company selling mainly large V8 powered cars and SUVs I would talk down the green lobby too.
However I have some sympathy with the view, the global ave temps have varied over millenia not just the 200 years or so of man's industrial revolution, I reckon evidence to the contrary is rather flaky.
Furthermore the effect of cars on CO2 and NOX is minimal within the bigger picture that is power gen, commercial aircon, road freight, air travel, bovine farming, natural volcanic activity etc.
|
Good Message, Wrong Messenger - shoot him
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Global temperatures have increased by 0.6 c in the last 125 years, part of which may be due to man (or not)
Politicians like to create hysteria about Global Warming (oh,forgot, we don't call it that anymore because it's not, so let's call it something ambiguous like "Climate Change") so they can justify stiffing us with extra taxes to buy the votes of the bloated civil service.
The game is to make us feel quilty for living, e.g flights, driving a car, parking etc, so we don't complain about the extra tax.
The Man from Crysler is right IMHO
|
|
Would it be fair to say that they have a point?
The Americans think so, but that is never / rarely reported on this side of the Atlantic.
The media in Britain / europe instead seem to focus on the USA's love of large engined cars - which is now no longer altogether accurate.
MTC
|
So someone has the temerity to:
A) Question the causes of climate change
and
B) Be an American
I'm surprised he hasn't been hung drawn and quartered already!
|
|
|
|
Madf: "I treat all forecasts as a measure of the credibility of the forecaster. "
With no desire to enter the climate-change debate again, I have to take issue with your logic, if the most stupid person in the world says it's raining outside, does that mean it's dry outside? It's a basic tenet of logic that the rationality of the speaker has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their logic.
V
|
With no desire to enter the climate-change debate again, I have to take issue with your logic, if the most stupid person in the world says it's raining outside, does that mean it's dry outside? It's a basic tenet of logic that the rationality of the speaker has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their logic. V
It all hinges on whether the stupid person is telling the truth or does not understand the meaning of "it's raining." In these circumstances it could well be dry outside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Van Jolissaint.
I have posted on previous threads that I do not believe we are under rapid global warming due to man's influence. The period of measurement is very short in terms of the Earth's history - a very very small fraction of 1%. In the Middle Ages grapes, oranges, and figs were grown in England as the temperature was 3 degrees Centigrade warmer than now. This startling fact was complete omitted from the Stern Report as it did not fit their point of view.
The largest influence on the Earth's temperature is not man, but the Sun. At present the Sun is having a period of extreme solar flares and therefore directing more energy towards Earth. Again another fact that was omitted from the Stern Report.
If you would like to read more on the politically incorrect position, the following articles, published in the Daily Telegraph (who also published full details on the Stern Report), have evidence that debunks the whole global warming concept. They are mind changing.
The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years
tinyurl.com/t4h8e
Wrong problem, wrong solution
tinyurl.com/ycv6bj
Do I think we need to develop clean power sources - yes. Man should leave as little impact on the Earth as possible.
Have we been squandering the Earth's resources - yes. Large amounts of the world's supply of oil, gas, iron, copper, aluminuim, etc have been consumed in a short period of time, some with a huge impact with their extraction.
Instead of considering a new car, we should be considering how we can extend the life of a vehicle. The Jeep came out as the most economic vehicle over its whole life when energy of construction, use and final scapping we taken into consideration as many lasted over 30 years. The car manufacturers are always updating their models, either with style and equipment changes or whole new designs. This is to create demand for extra sales. Pressure is exerted at the other end of the car's life cyle by MOT testing of emmisions or structural integrity. If we truly were interested in increasing the life of our planet's resources we shold be looking at ways to reduce model changes and extend vehicle life.
Not many of you will agree with my view, but it is far more realistic than CO2 emmissions.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Instead of considering a new car, we should be considering how we can extend the life of a vehicle. >>
Good point, much better for an American to run his Explorer, Blazer, or Grand Cherokee for an extra four years than buy a Prius that has so much embbeded carbon.
|
To make the most efficient use of resources we would all drive cars that are designed with the following considered:
Economy (mpg)
Cost of manufacture (money and environmental)
Life span
Areodynamics
minimal features (e.g. no air con or PS)
We wouold all have to drive the same cars and models would rarely be changed. Parts from accident damaged or scrapped cars could be recycled either as second hand parts or the raw materials used to make new parts. You would have a choice of cars - small, medium or large and a similar range of vans and lorries. Cars would be made in UK factories owned by the state with strict controls over wages, quality, manufacturing process etc. You would own a car 'for life'
But of course this would never work as many people don't buy cars based on the criteria above. For many people they consider the following:
badge
Styling
Latest model
features
performance
large engine (mine is bigger than yours)
people like a 'new' car
people like the freedom to choose their car
My personal view is that like many things in life we need to do things in moderation. I don't want to go back to stone age, but I also don't want to waste our resources so that our children have no choice but to go back to stone age.
|
"But of course this would never work as many people don't buy cars based on the criteria above. For many people they consider the following:
badge
Styling
Latest model
features
performance
large engine (mine is bigger than yours)
people like a 'new' car
people like the freedom to choose their car"
And good for them. You only live once and then it's the worms (and probably a fair bit of methane produced) or cremation (oh dear, more CO2)
I wouldn't mind so much if our preaching politicians set a good example, but they don't. The only reason I have a diesel car is because it's more economical and saves me paying so much at the pumps(IMHO). I like air-con because it is more comfortable on hot days. My central heating is on now so I don't have to sit in my long johns, two sweaters and a coat while at the computer. But the radiators are turned off upstairs because I don't like a hot bedroom (you know what I mean!)
120 years ago my great grandfather would not have believed thet we would be driving around in cars powered by "oil", have electric lights in our houses and streets, have fridges and washing machines and those peculiar flying machines with wings carrying people.
This whole debate about "climate change " takes no account of human ingenuity.
I have no doubt that in another 120 years my great,great grandchildren will be driving machines which use CO2 as a fuel and they will be complaining about the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere which could cause global cooling (or maybe even further global warming!)
In 120 years who is going to thank me for doing without air con in my car? They won't even know I existed - can you name your great grand-parents? And anyway, being a very selfish perso, and only having (with a bit of luck) another 25 years on this planet, to be quite honest I don't care if temps are going to be another 0.6 deg higher in another 120 years.
--
Phil
|
'Chrysler Economist' sounds like an oxymoron, given the history of the company over the last 25 years. Moreover, I wonder if he thinks his bosses in Stuttgart are hysterical Europeans?
On the same theme, I was reading in today's paper that McCain have done research which disproves the popular misconception that chips are unhealthy...
|
On the same theme, I was reading in today's paper that McCain have done research which disproves the popular misconception that chips are unhealthy...
Thats old news. Anything eaten to excess is unhealthy.
MTC
|
|
|
On the same theme, I was reading in today's paper that McCain have done research which disproves the popular misconception that chips are unhealthy...
As I said we all have an axe to grind, I personally subscribe to the idea that chocolate is a good antioxidant, and is good for a cough, and alcohol is good for the heart unless taken in excess (more than 8 pints a night?), still looking for the health benefits in Fruit Pastilles and Doritos though if there are any I will find them.
|
On a long flight recently (lots of CO2 being pumped out no doubt) I saw the Al Gore film "An Uncomfortable Truth" which relates his campaign concerning environmental and climate change. I have to say the film presents a very powerful argument both for global warming and the underlying causes. In particular I was struck by the demonstration of the correlation between CO2 production and warming. Whilst correlation isnt causation, none the less he presents some very convincing data. From an economic perspective he commented on the persistent failure of the US government and auto industry to accept the issue of global warming as being due to the potential consequences for auto manufacturing. He then commented that fuel consumption of US cars was substantially higher than cars in other developed and developing economies, to such an extent that other countries would find US product unacceptable and they are therefore disadvantaged whether they accept the argument or not. He also presented some sensible solutions that could address the issue of CO2 emissions. Altogether very thought provoking, and if you get the chance to see it then i would certainly suggest you do so. So how come they ended with George Bush? but that discussion is not one to be had here!
MGs.
|
|
Chrysler are merely stating, crudely, an American outlook on energy consumption, relying on the maintenance of their status quo. The author resorts to insults rather than argument. Much easier to deal with an uncomfortable issue by denouncing opposing views as "hysterical" or "communistic". Of course, as the American way has depended on large vehicles, they are as susceptible to being outflanked as the UK motorcycle industry when the Japanese machines became available. In the face of growing energy prices, even US consumers are moving in the direction of less wasteful vehicles, even if vehicles represent only a small proportion of energy usage
|
Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about "An Inconvenient Truth."
"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:
* He promoted the now debunked "hockey stick" temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate
* He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age
* He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.
* He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer
* He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
* He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing
* He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices
* He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
* He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing
* He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
* He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving
* He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.
|
I'm glad hes said this - all he's done is question the hysteria that is blatant over here.
He simply proposed spending more time worrying about immediate issues and keep an eye to the future regarding global warming.
Of course such a rational argument would be dismissed by our government, who are falling over themselves to create new 'green' taxes
|
The Government loves "Climate Change"
They can scare the punters and focus on some wooly concept that may or may not be true - much easier than sorting out the NHS, Crine, Schools etc. that they have failed miserably to address, despite record taxation levels.
|
|
There are many who disagree with Lindzen, and a set of arguments are given here: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222. Here is the summary para: In some ways Lindzen's thinking on the climate change issue has not changed much since 1999, as can be seen in an older rebuttal of his position by Jim Hansen (scroll down to Table 1). However, he does seem to have become convinced that the 20th Century warming is real. What is interesting about the comparison between then and now, is that Hansen made two appeals to the data gathering community to test a) whether water vapour feedbacks can be observed, and b) whether the ocean heat content is increasing in line with the model predictions. It is quite telling that both of these data analyses have since been made and they confirm Hansen's contentions, not Lindzen's. BTW, the source is from 'over there" so concern about climate change is not a European phenomenon.
|
This is a fascinating debate as there is not only argument amongst scientists and the public about the science, but also the interpretation of the science. We all see and read different things into the observations as we seek explanation. I well remember Lindzen's participation in a discussion about the greenhouse effect some years ago now where he and other scientists came up with completely different perspectives based on the same data. He has been a consistent nay sayer of climate change.Twenty odd years Paul Ehrlich engendered vigorous discussion and concern about the world population exploding out of control (his book was called The Population Bomb) and whilst accepted as credible then, he is now widely derided.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that this is a wonderful excuse to clobber the motorist even more, if the environmental taxes dont get you then road pricing will.
MGs
|
|
|
|
|
