Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Post Thanks / Like

    Global Warming

    long read!

    [url]http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/mlib/3359/02/3359_1171482214.doc[/url]

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting.

    I wonder if Dennis Avery would like to formally debate a living Nobel Laureate scientist such as S. Chu (Physics) G. Smoot (Physics) C. Townes (Physics) Y. Lee (Chemistry) D. Glaser (Physics), F. Rowland and M. Molina (Atmospheric chemistry) - who have all publically stated their belief in global warming caused by human production of CO2.

    Or maybe he can take things up with the Bush administration, after all George W. commissioned the Federal Climate Change Science Program in 2002. In 2006 this released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is ‘clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).’

    Mr. Avery could also have a talk with a representative from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics or NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies - all of whom have endorsed the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypotheisis.

    Maybe the normally cautious American Meteorological Organisation is wrong, that issued a statement earlier this year noting “There is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies.”
    [url]http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html[/url]

    If the 1500 year cycle is clear then why did the national science academies of the G8 nations that along with the science academies of Brazil, China and India signed a statement in 2005 on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change had become sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
    [url]http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf[/url]

    Mr. Avery could also speak with a representative from the Academies of Science for Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden or the United Kingdom - who also have issued separate statements regarding AGW.

    Or perhaps a representative from the one of the 188 national meteorological organizations that form the membership of the World Meteorological Organization - that oversees the work of the IPCC.

    Or Dennis Avery could ask one of the 31 (living) Nobel Prize winning Chemists or 36 (living) Nobel Prize winning physicists who all signed a statement calling for governments to support for the UN Convention on Climate Change.

    But wait this is all a liberal media driven scare tactic because "Grennies don't like the rich people who drive SUV's".

  3. #3
    flushingjet
    Guest
    just another commie attempt at wealth redistribution period

    consensus lib science is like mock nfl drafts - pointless

    no one can argue about ozone depletion
    but let china and india do their part re: CO2 and coal-burning plants, autos etc
    australia is the wild west compared to the usa emissions wise

    q: why was the montreal protocol ok (CFC use) for them, but kyoto wasnt
    a: re-gassing is easily, replacing energy sources is hard

    you cant expect detroit to digest this pablum without the quid pro quo
    of cutting loose most of their bloated uaw payrolls

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]
    you cant expect detroit to digest this pablum without the quid pro quo
    of cutting loose most of their bloated uaw payrolls[/QUOTE]

    I believe the bloat has already been cut loose

  5. #5
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Buster]I believe the bloat has already been cut loose[/QUOTE]

    not yet

    Characterised by severe structural overcapacity and increasingly aggressive competitors, today’s [color=black]global automotive[/color] sector is in the grips of a devastating global price war. North American consumer givebacks (in the form of consumer incentives) totaled an estimated $45 billion last year, and the European price war is equally brutal. Even high growth China has been hit by new car price deflation as competition has intensified. Automotive component suppliers around the world decry the continual “price downs” from their automaker customers, while rising commodity prices are squeezing some suppliers to the point of strangulation
    The reason for this dire situation? Simple: the automotive industry has too much of everything — too much capacity, too many competitors and too much redundancy and overlap. For all the talk of better returns as a result of globalisation, meaningful consolidation and rationalisation have yet to truly take hold. For example, according to AUTOFACTS, light vehicle excess capacity today stands at 20 million units — the equivalent of over 80 assembly plants — corresponding to a 76 percent utilisation rate. Even with growth expectations of 10 million units over the next eight years, it is unlikely that industry-wide capacity utilisation will improve to the 85 percent profitability threshold. And with market complexity and interdependence increasing, so are sources for volatility and risk. The future direction of this hyper-competitive industry can most optimistically be characterised as “uncertain”.


    [url="http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/ACB79AA9E2933B9B85257014005E7C7A"]http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/ACB79AA9E2933B9B85257014005E7C7A[/url]

    The cost of retiree benefits, especially healthcare, continues to be a major issue for automotive employers and employees, especially throughout the U.S. Spending on healthcare is projected to grow on average about seven percent for the next 5-8 years compared to expected growth in the US GDP of about five percent. Although rising healthcare costs are a global problem, OEMs and suppliers in the U.S. automotive industry have been particularly hard hit due to the sheer number of auto industry retirees. It has been estimated that the cost of healthcare alone can add nearly $1,500 to the cost of some US domestic vehicles. Overseas automakers are typically not burdened with retiree “legacy costs”, putting additional pressure on US manufacturers struggling to compete.

    [url="http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/87F888FD79C752AB852570140061E7CD"]http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/87F888FD79C752AB852570140061E7CD[/url]

    also
    [url="http://www.world.xorte.com/0,6,Diverging-Outlooks-for-Global-Auto-Manufacturers-in-2007,647.html"]http://www.world.xorte.com/0,6,Diverging-Outlooks-for-Global-Auto-Manufacturers-in-2007,647.html[/url]

    etc etc

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,853
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]not yet

    Characterised by severe structural overcapacity and increasingly aggressive competitors, today’s [color=black]global automotive[/color] sector is in the grips of a devastating global price war. North American consumer givebacks (in the form of consumer incentives) totaled an estimated $45 billion last year, and the European price war is equally brutal. Even high growth China has been hit by new car price deflation as competition has intensified. Automotive component suppliers around the world decry the continual “price downs” from their automaker customers, while rising commodity prices are squeezing some suppliers to the point of strangulation
    The reason for this dire situation? Simple: the automotive industry has too much of everything — too much capacity, too many competitors and too much redundancy and overlap. For all the talk of better returns as a result of globalisation, meaningful consolidation and rationalisation have yet to truly take hold. For example, according to AUTOFACTS, light vehicle excess capacity today stands at 20 million units — the equivalent of over 80 assembly plants — corresponding to a 76 percent utilisation rate. Even with growth expectations of 10 million units over the next eight years, it is unlikely that industry-wide capacity utilisation will improve to the 85 percent profitability threshold. And with market complexity and interdependence increasing, so are sources for volatility and risk. The future direction of this hyper-competitive industry can most optimistically be characterised as “uncertain”.


    [url="http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/ACB79AA9E2933B9B85257014005E7C7A"]http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/ACB79AA9E2933B9B85257014005E7C7A[/url]

    The cost of retiree benefits, especially healthcare, continues to be a major issue for automotive employers and employees, especially throughout the U.S. Spending on healthcare is projected to grow on average about seven percent for the next 5-8 years compared to expected growth in the US GDP of about five percent. Although rising healthcare costs are a global problem, OEMs and suppliers in the U.S. automotive industry have been particularly hard hit due to the sheer number of auto industry retirees. It has been estimated that the cost of healthcare alone can add nearly $1,500 to the cost of some US domestic vehicles. Overseas automakers are typically not burdened with retiree “legacy costs”, putting additional pressure on US manufacturers struggling to compete.

    [url="http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/87F888FD79C752AB852570140061E7CD"]http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/87F888FD79C752AB852570140061E7CD[/url]

    also
    [url="http://www.world.xorte.com/0,6,Diverging-Outlooks-for-Global-Auto-Manufacturers-in-2007,647.html"]http://www.world.xorte.com/0,6,Diverging-Outlooks-for-Global-Auto-Manufacturers-in-2007,647.html[/url]

    etc etc[/QUOTE]

    Thats it blame the workers who helped make GM, Ford the companies they are. Management doesn't take any blame for poor design and gas mileage.

  7. #7
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]Thats it blame the workers who helped make GM, Ford the companies they are. Management doesn't take any blame for poor design and gas mileage.[/QUOTE]

    ?
    The workers assembled the cars, the designers and engineers had the vision.
    Cant blame them for misaligned doors and other assembly defects.

    From the UAW, and this is old data,

    As of the second quarter of 2003, a UAW-represented assembler earns [b]$25.63[/b] per hour of straight time. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker earns [b]$29.75[/b] per hour of straight time.

    $25.63+ /hr for a door panel screwer and lug-nut tightener is nice work
    if you can get it.
    Especially if a machine can do your job faster and more accurately.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    We can live without blue collar workers, but you would never imagine a world without CEO's, we all know a computer couldn't make the same decisions they do.


    [QUOTE=flushingjet]?
    The workers assembled the cars, the designers and engineers had the vision.
    Cant blame them for misaligned doors and other assembly defects.

    From the UAW, and this is old data,

    As of the second quarter of 2003, a UAW-represented assembler earns [b]$25.63[/b] per hour of straight time. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker earns [b]$29.75[/b] per hour of straight time.

    $25.63+ /hr for a door panel screwer and lug-nut tightener is nice work
    if you can get it.
    Especially if a machine can do your job faster and more accurately.[/QUOTE]

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]?
    The workers assembled the cars, the designers and engineers had the vision.
    Cant blame them for misaligned doors and other assembly defects.

    From the UAW, and this is old data,

    As of the second quarter of 2003, a UAW-represented assembler earns [b]$25.63[/b] per hour of straight time. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker earns [b]$29.75[/b] per hour of straight time.

    $25.63+ /hr for a door panel screwer and lug-nut tightener is nice work
    if you can get it.
    Especially if a machine can do your job faster and more accurately.[/QUOTE]


    Bad design, engineering defects, planned obsolescence, all management fault, opened the door to foreign autos breaking into our markets. Over priced production due to the ridiculous contracts that the UAW extracted killed the chance for a comeback. There is enough blame to go around on this one.

  10. #10
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=cr726]We can live without blue collar workers, but you would never imagine a world without CEO's, we all know a computer couldn't make the same decisions they do.[/QUOTE]


    nothing like class envy/warfare
    uh, i'd rank a ceo's job as more difficult than a lug nut tightener
    but i gotta give the lug nut tighteners credit-their pension
    will be more lucrative than mine

    staying on topic, the us auto ceos arent the very highest paid,
    and of the ceos that are, most of their compensation comes
    from exercised stock options-legal & contractual

    [url="http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro.html"]http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro.html[/url]

    stands to reason if you make the co. profitable you get rewarded

    there are some that are overpaid, true
    its up to the boards/stockholders to remove them

    in the meantime, let bahney fwank handle this important problem
    [url="http://www.forbes.com/compensation/2007/03/01/frank-executive-compensation-lead-comp_cx_hc_0301frank.html"]http://www.forbes.com/compensation/2007/03/01/frank-executive-compensation-lead-comp_cx_hc_0301frank.html[/url]

  11. #11
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Bad design, engineering defects, planned obsolescence, all management fault, opened the door to foreign autos breaking into our markets. Over priced production due to the ridiculous contracts that the UAW extracted killed the chance for a comeback. There is enough blame to go around on this one.[/QUOTE]

    somewhat true through the 70s, but you left out some other important points

    we, the USAtried tariffs/quotas on autos & what was done didnt work....
    pressured by the big 3, the US, under Reagan, exacted
    voluntary export restraints (VER)s which put a cap on the number of recycled zeros, I mean japanese cars
    as a democratic congress mooted legislation (HR.1234/5133, which
    passed &, S.707) mandating domestic content for cars sold in the U.S. market
    this led to a concentration on higher margin, luxury models being offered
    (acura, lexus, infiniti...) as us automakers, perceiving
    less demand, fled that market sector
    more crucially, foreign/japanese auto mfrs were allowed to open new, more
    efficient plants here, with the assistance of state and local governments
    who didnt mandate who was to actually own the plants.
    couple that with operating in right to work states
    (MI, SC, AL) in the south - cheaper labor in new plants - bigger margins
    with less contribution back to govt/union coffers

    conversely, the us big 3 had to face barriers abroad.

    for instance, in S. Korea, all foreign mfrs sold 30,000 cars there in 2005, just 3.3 % of their auto market. Korean carmakers that year sold more than 1.5M vehicles abroad. The combination of an 8% tariff and taxes on engine size added about $9,000 to the price tag of a $30,000 imported car. In addition the S. Korean government audited tax returns of all imported car buyers...ouch!

    A free trade agreement was reached earlier this year which removed
    these obstacles but dont hold your breath for gm cars sweeping korea,
    even with their absorption of daewoo.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Flushingjet- What are your thoughts regarding the Cerberus buyout of Chrysler? Do you think they can manage to bring back Chrysler into the Big Three?

  13. #13
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=chicadeel]Flushingjet- What are your thoughts regarding the Cerberus buyout of Chrysler? Do you think they can manage to bring back Chrysler into the Big Three?[/QUOTE]

    some random musings. IMO Chrysler has been a very sick
    company for decades, with its engineering and design heyday
    (transmission, hemi, Chrysler 300 etc) long gone

    my first car was a 1981 Plymouth TC3 with a VW engine that,
    although I didnt care for it properly,
    and i liked, was rife with serious design and quality issues
    and very illustrative of an ailing co.
    hobbled by its own problems and absorption of AMC
    which was itself a merger creation

    yet i knew back then the govt wouldnt take on 250K welfare cases
    and let a major defense contractor go bust...
    so the co was propped up,
    got healthier thru the 80s and 90s and eventually bought by daimler.

    Today, 2007? some hot /popular models
    (Dodge Ram pickup, one of the top 10 sellers, beleive it or not,
    PT cruiser, Jeeps)
    yet still has some serious problems, to wit:

    i took the lease over on a jeep liberty 2 yrs ago
    for a relative. (long story, try never
    to do it unless you want an ulcer)
    Frustrating Hassles from their inept bureaucracy, (took 20 calls to complete
    as well as a credit app-why does taking a lease over
    take weeks when you can buy/lease a new car in hours?)
    originating dealer (larchmont NY) didnt help settle the transfer,
    forced to pay extra money to assume warranty,
    basically enjoy the vehicle (my first SUV) which
    was loaded, but also had a very dangerous design
    flaw (Ball Joint Failure that made Wheels fall off)
    that i drove around with for a year before the recall repair.

    Excellent local dealer service
    but seemingly missing that certain
    extra customer service touch what other brands, i e
    Japanese, Cadillac provide.
    if the quality and customer service dont improve look for Jeep
    to be absorbed and the rest in the dustbin of auto history

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    My second car was a big old Dodge Polara. Bought it for $100. My uncles always teased me that one morning I would wake up and see that they welded a plow to the front. You could not kill that tank. Had it for years and sold it for $100.

    Hopefully the UAW will come to the realization that they have to give into major concessions soon or lose jobs. It seems almost impossible for these American car companies to compete with foreign companies when the American companies are footing major payments for health care and pensions and the foreign companies are not. These foreign companies can invest in innovative technologies and engineering while the American companies always seem three steps behind.
    Last edited by chicadeel; 05-16-2007 at 07:44 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us