I feel perfectly justified in confronting what you say.
I don't think very much of your knowledge on any subject, least of all physics. I need only to refer to our last conversation on equilibrium to demonstrate that your understanding of mathematical physics is at best at a very low level.
Your knowledge of history - and sensitivity to it - apparently is equally weak. Right wing German nationalism existed in 1923, although it had not
yet assumed actual control of the Government. The "Ueber alles" song has connotations for all victims of Nazism. It was, in fact,
banned by the allies.
Here is an example of Hitler himself speaking on the song which you so blithely evoke here:
On July 28, 1922, Hitler declares: "We shall possess once again a true German Reich of freedom and of honor, a real fatherland of the whole German people . . . He who has so taken to heart the meaning of our great song 'Deutschland, Deutschland uber Alles,' that nothing in this world stands for him higher than this Germany. .
http://www.raoulfelder.com/articles/germany.htmlActually the song
continues to be the national anthem of Germany, but the first and second stanzas, including the "ueber alles" evocation are specifically excluded. Now
why would Germany
exclude these verses? Could it have anything to do with
historical sensitivity??
I can't wait to see your characteristically
bizarre interpretation. When the Ueber alles verses are sung, even at sporting events, furious emotions are raised.
Now let's turn to one of your other "skills": Soothsaying.
Your continuous attempts at soothsaying - appealing to crapola predictions about some far off future that will actually experience the consequences of what is done today - have no merit. It is easy to show that similar soothsaying by people in the past, say in 1993, about the energy future have proved to be purely absurd in the actual event.
Of course you
must appeal to soothsaying to support your case, since the immediate present does not support your case in any way.
As is often the case, you substitute blithe generalizations like "Germany wants to reduce GHG emissions by 40% (their stated goal), they will not be built."
How will they not be built? By reading JPak tracts 15 years from now? If your "renewables will save us" meme has any merit, why then are people arguing about the subject, proposing the plants etc. Shouldn't they just be talking about their swell solar cells?
All the crap about "clean coal" in the grand German future is just apologetics and obviates the nature of your arguments. "Even if..." Even if indeed. Germany
will build those coal plants because Germany needs continuous base load power and Germany - in an appeal to appalling ignorance - has foolishly allowed itself to commit to a nuclear phase out policy. Clearly this foolish policy has resulted in financial rewards for its architect Gerhard Schroeder, Gazprom executive.
Coal must be banned, not reduced by some "percent." In a rather bizarre interpretation, you again innumerately evoke "percent" saying that Germany "will reduce it's GHG emissions by 14%." Guess what? Eight-six percent of Germany's current emissions is not enough, not even close to being enough.
If you make statements in a public forum, expect them to be confronted, especially when they are consistently ridiculous. If you don't want to be confronted, mutter your crude aspersions and fantasies in some corner where no one can hear you.