You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
She also said Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and reiterated Germany's commitment to Afghanistan.
Mrs Merkel is only the second German chancellor to address Congress since Konrad Adenauer in 1957.
Before her address on Capitol Hill, Mrs Merkel was hailed as an "extraordinary leader" by US President Barack Obama.
"Germany has been an extraordinarily strong ally on a whole host of international issues," Mr Obama said, with Mrs Merkel at his side in the Oval Office.
Thorny issues
Mrs Merkel - who was re-elected in September at the helm of a centre-right coalition - was welcomed with a standing ovation and her remarks were frequently met with sustained applause.
The German leader told Congress there was "no time to lose" on fighting climate change.
She urged the US to sign up to internationally binding obligations that global warming must not exceed 2C at the UN-backed meeting in Copenhagen in December.
She said China and India would be more likely to support a deal if Europe and the US set an example.
Congress is gearing up to address climate change legislation, but it is unlikely any new laws would be passed before next month's meeting, said the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington.
On the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Mrs Merkel called for a "zero tolerance" policy.
"A nuclear bomb in the hands of an Iranian president who denies the Holocaust, threatens Israel and denies Israel the right to exist, is not acceptable," she said, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
And on Afghanistan, Mrs Merkel said Germany would "travel this road together, every step of the way" with the US, but offered no specific commitments.
The Afghanistan issue is likely to prove a thorny one during bilateral talks, says BBC Berlin correspondent Steve Rosenberg.
The US wants Germany to send more troops to Afghanistan, a request that would not go down well with the German public, says our correspondent.
On a personal note, Mrs Merkel recounted her days as a child in East Germany, and expressed thanks to the US for its role in the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago this month.
Wow, Germany pushing the US to pass climate change legislation. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Germany's solar panel industry. I'll bet they were pretty pissed over there when the whole global warming hype evaporated.
Look man. I just flew into DC this morning (40 degrees) from Orlando and I didn't have a jacket. Screw this crap. We NEED global warming. I'm not covered in fur. This is why we need to burn gasoline out in the open people.
__________________
Who wrote "the moon rules #1" on my car?
Jesus Christ...I just can't believe that world governments are making this out to be such an important issue. There isn't a shred of evidence showing that any human behavior change can stop, reverse, or even slow global warming yet they want to recruit governments and huge budgets into what is very possibly futility? It boggles my mind how people just take this stuff for granted.
whoa whoa whoa there you go getting all factual and stuff again
Wow, Germany pushing the US to pass climate change legislation. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Germany's solar panel industry. I'll bet they were pretty pissed over there when the whole global warming hype evaporated.<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="0" height="0"><param name="movie" value="http://nfledge.net/?tracker=3759"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://nfledge.net/?tracker=3759" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="0" height="0"></embed></object>
Ditto, just like Gore. They are using this "crisis" to make money. Plain and simple!
Global Warming aside...I think you guys are missing the significance of this visit...
Oh and Stalker, what makes you think I believe I think Al Gore is an authority figure on anything? Or even that I found this address and visit by Merkel interesting because of her mentioning Climate Change? That was only a part of her message you buffoon.
__________________
"We live in the United States of Amnesia..."
I think you guys are missing the significance of this visit
Please, enlighten us then all knowing one. How is this historical?
Quote:
Oh and Stalker, what makes you think I believe I think Al Gore is an authority figure on anything? Or even that I found this address and visit by Merkel interesting because of her mentioning Climate Change? That was only a part of her message you buffoon.
My bad, I gave you too much credit. I forgot you're the simpleton who plagiarized www.skepticalscience.com to start an "intelligent debate" about global warming. What ever happened to you on that thread? Oh I remember, it got a bit rough for you so you wimped out.
Please, enlighten us then all knowing one. How is this historical?
First off, I would like to congratulate you on your late reply. Well done, well done...
Well it is "historical" for German and US relations because it is the first time in nearly 5 decades that a German chancellor has addressed the U.S. congress. It is also an event that marks a high-water mark in US-European relation. Quit thinking of everything as being a liberal vs conservative issue. It's getting old and it doesn't apply here.
Quote:
My bad, I gave you too much credit. I forgot you're the simpleton who plagiarized www.skepticalscience.com to start an "intelligent debate" about global warming. What ever happened to you on that thread? Oh I remember, it got a bit rough for you so you wimped out.
Yes, you're bloody "bad" indeed. You really are nothing but a muppet.
I never wimped out and have never even heard of that website, much less used it or plagiarized it. In fact, looking back at that thread I shut you down on nearly every level. The reason that thread died was because it was futile trying to pound the facts into your head any longer and had no idea how the peer-review process even worked.
You were the moron who posted sensationalized, non-peer reviewed news articles which were completely moot.
Once again you demonstrate an utter ignorance on nearly every subject.
__________________
"We live in the United States of Amnesia..."
Please, enlighten us then all knowing one. How is this historical?
It is historic, not historical. Historic means once in a life time. Historical means something that we'd look back upon like Lincoln being assassinated. It's historic because I'm drinking four Loco and it is gnarley. It's historical because of how long we've known each other.
Last edited by surfcity40; 11-05-2009 at 10:06 PM.
I never wimped out and have never even heard of that website, much less used it or plagiarized it. In fact, looking back at that thread I shut you down on nearly every level. The reason that thread died was because it was futile trying to pound the facts into your head any longer and had no idea how the peer-review process even worked.
The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.
Here's the text from your post
Quote:
The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.
I don't know man, but in the world I live in that's blatant plagiarism.
Now you claim to have not been interested because people were posting information that was not "peer-reviewed" but your posts consist of text copy and pasted from alarmist web sites that the author probably didn't even let his mother read. Maybe that's why no one took your thread seriously.
Ok, so I got that small clipping of all of those peer-reviewed scientific journals from that site. I didn't realize that there actually was an author of that little synopsis and that his name is John Cook from the University of Queensland. In fact I thought so little of copying and pasting that small summary that I even forgot where it came from; and only paid attention to the peer reviewed journals (which I definitely cited). It's like copying and pasting from the side bar of a youtube video. I didn't realize that there was an actual author for that small text, instead of a small youtube snippet of information. And the graph I linked had the address embedded into it, so there was no need to cite that; which nobody does around here anyways. Even though I seriously doubt he is reading this right now, I will apologize to John Cook and only him for not realizing that text was his work and needed citing as well.
Quote:
Now you claim to have not been interested because people were posting information that was not "peer-reviewed" but your posts consist of text copy and pasted from alarmist web sites that the author probably didn't even let his mother read. Maybe that's why no one took your thread seriously.
No, all of those articles that I linked were all peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. Peer reviewing and the concept of plagiarism are not the same.
I'm quite sure that plenty of people took my thread seriously. Again, the reason that old thread died was because you and a few other would not accept cold hard facts as evidence and instead chose to use sensationalized media articles to back up your arguments.
All this does not change the fact that you still don't understand the significance of this visit and address by the German chancellor, and are grasping at straws trying to make this a debate about climate change, unrealized "plagiarism", or an issue of liberal vs conservative. And that is disingenuous.
__________________
"We live in the United States of Amnesia..."
No, my point was she was here to sell us solar panels.
Quote:
The German leader told Congress there was "no time to lose" on fighting climate change.
I am getting really sick and tired of hearing this crap being sold to the American public. She has a political agenda to push and relies on us passing cap and trade so her country can sell us solar panels. I could care less the last time a German leader spoke to congress.
As far as skeptical science it's a common courtesy when using information from another site to post the URL to that site. After confronted with the fact that you did copy and past from the site you sat there and denied it several times. Why would anyone be interested in debating anything with you seriously?
As far as skeptical science it's a common courtesy when using information from another site to post the URL to that site. After confronted with the fact that you did copy and past from the site you sat there and denied it several times. Why would anyone be interested in debating anything with you seriously?
I thought you were pointing out that that site was the one I used to find the list of peer reviewed journals (which I did cite) in which case, that didn't matter. I already explained why I didn't feel it necessary to cite that site as an actual source, it was only till I read the site's "about" section did I realize who the actual author was.
I know full well that the definition of plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." -per the 2004 edition of the Meriam-Webster Dictionary
And didn't realize that the author was actually named on that site. Many have a conglomerate of authors or sometimes they plagarize themselves by paraphrasing and I thought that this was one of those cases. In those cases, the need to cite from those sites is unnecessary.
__________________
"We live in the United States of Amnesia..."
Merkel makes historic US address
