GM plant closing in Janesville

[texaspackerbacker]

The only people I know very well with an SUV have a '05 Tahoe--not a hybrid, and they claim it gets 20 highway and 15 or 16 in town. My "double 8-12 mpg" is probably about as much hyperbole as the 8-12 figure itself. Split the difference and you have a realistic figure.

Ziggy, GM has always been very good at giving people what the market demands. Until the recent high gas prices--and more specifically, the stink made about those prices by the media, the demand has been for SUVs, not plug-ins or hybrids or whatever. Now they will be among the leaders with the Chevy Volt. Don't rule out all this gas price crap blowing over and SUVs getting back on track again in a couple of years, though. It happened just that way not many years ago.

Hoosier, the farce of manmade global warming is simply NOT supportable by the facts. Global warming at all is very suspect. I could, and indeed have in various forums over the years, cited a bunch of facts and stats shooting it down. However, given your PATHETIC record of defending or criticizing ANYTHING with logic or facts, I will wait for YOU to explain why anybody could possibly BELIEVE the total crap of that theory. Of course, you not only WON'T--because you are so lame, but CAN'T because there are no facts supporting the theory.

[Partial]

Having been born and raised in Janesville, this plant was my bread and butter--literally. My dad worked there for 37 years before retiring.

Unless there have been major earlier cuts there, though, the whole plant is not closing. GM employment in Janesville has been around 7,000, and the report is that each GM closing will affect 2,500 employees. Thus, I think the "closing" is only the shutting down of the truck and SUV line--with auto production continuing.

Who's to blame? I would think the wacko environmentalists have a lot to do with it on two levels: One being the irrational Obama-esque rants that Americans shouldn't be allowed to drive that sort of vehicle, the other being the disallowing of drilling and using available America-produced oil and driving gas prices up.

The longer term "problem" is that the great income, benefits, and retirement situation which the UAW secured for its workers has seriously harmed the financial health of GM. Having personally benefitted from that situation, I'd be a hypocrite to criticize it too much. Just the same, it is what it is.

Instead of blaming environmentalists, maybe you should be blaming GM for having a shitty R&D and Marketing department in that they couldn't foresee the trend to smaller cars as gas prices started escalating. For some reason, all the other car companies have managed to figure that one out but GM thought people were going to drive their expensive gas guzzling behemoths forever.

By the way, my little car gets 30 mpg, there's no way an SUV gets 24 unless it's a hybrid.

I don't blame GM for a lack of R&D, I blame the lack of American talent. How many of the best engineers are working for Honda and Toyota?!? I blame GM for refusal to adapt. Also, the unions and the outrageously high labor salaries and pensions. Toyota and Honda didn't have to deal with that.

Plenty of SUVs get 24 miles per gallon. Don't be foolish. We have a Saturn Vue with a Honda V6 that gets about 25. My Dad's Escape gets about 27 on the highway and 17 in the city. Depending on where he is going he can average out to that.

GM spread itself very thin with too much branding. Why not stick with just Chevy, and make 10 or so quality cars instead of 30 that are ok?

[MJZiggy]

America has plenty of talent. You also have to have a situation in which that talent is encouraged and nurtured rather than stifled. If corporate thinks that America wants big trucks then all the competitive ingenuity they've got will get dumped in the wrong place. They set themselves a niche in a fragile market. As the market collapsed, so did their brands.

[Partial]

America has plenty of talent. You also have to have a situation in which that talent is encouraged and nurtured rather than stifled. If corporate thinks that America wants big trucks then all the competitive ingenuity they've got will get dumped in the wrong place. They set themselves a niche in a fragile market. As the market collapsed, so did their brands.

Does Honda not sell an assload of Pilots and CRVs? Do you not see a million Tundras and Tacomas cruising around? There will always be a need for larger vehicles, even trucks. Toyota and Honda are putting together a far superior product since they have better talent designing their stuff. I think the gas mileage has very little to do with GMs collapse. Let's not forget they declared bankruptcy once before.

[Freak Out]

oops..

[hoosier]

Hoosier, the farce of manmade global warming is simply NOT supportable by the facts. Global warming at all is very suspect.

This should be interesting. We can start a separate thread to avoid jacking the Janesville thread. If global warming theory isn't supportable "by the facts," why is it that both the scientific community and the US government (EPA) both recognize that, in the words of the EPA, "most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities"? While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Have both the EPA and the world's scientific community become pawns of international anti-American Leftist propaganda?

Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.

(Joint statement by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Russia, and the U.S.)

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742

[Patler]

While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Actually, there is. You need to read some of the studies of the long range climatologist committees, who consider anything less than 100 years to be a "current condition". They understand the oceans as having the biggest effect on global temperature fluctuations. In their studies, the current climate changes are almost identical to what occurred about 300-500 years ago, including the melting of the polar ice cap. It is this melting that will eventually cool down the ocean currents, leading to another cool period such as that which caused the various famines in Europe about 150-200 years ago, and the "year without a summer" in North America. These followed extended periods (100-200) years during which temperatures in Europe were so warm that crops were grown in regions that will not support them even today. They see the current conditions, and those leading up to it as a part of a well-documented cycle lasting more than about 400 years.

There are a lot of contrary positions to the popular global warming theories, they just are not as well publicized because they do not carry the shock value of the popular ones. It is an issue that is still open to much study and understanding.

[hoosier]

While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Actually, there is. You need to read some of the studies of the long range climatologist committees, who consider anything less than 100 years to be a "current condition". They understand the oceans as having the biggest effect on global temperature fluctuations. In their studies, the current climate changes are almost identical to what occurred about 300-500 years ago, including the melting of the polar ice cap. It is this melting that will eventually cool down the ocean currents, leading to another cool period such as that which caused the various famines in Europe about 150-200 years ago, and the "year without a summer" in North America. These followed extended periods (100-200) years during which temperatures in Europe were so warm that crops were grown in regions that will not support them even today. They see the current conditions, and those leading up to it as a part of a well-documented cycle lasting more than about 400 years.

There are a lot of contrary positions to the popular global warming theories, they just are not as well publicized because they do not carry the shock value of the popular ones. It is an issue that is still open to much study and understanding.

Which studies are you referring to?

[LL2]

Instead of blaming environmentalists, maybe you should be blaming GM for having a shitty R&D and Marketing department in that they couldn't foresee the trend to smaller cars as gas prices started escalating.

You can't ignore the mismanagement, but the Union certainly didn't help matters any.

Mismanagement is the key word to GM, Ford, and Chrysler. My dad is a consultant to Ford and is in Dearborn every day, so he see's the mismanagement all the time. Did you know that Ford handed out bonuses to all levels of management at a time when they are reporting loses every quarter? Now, try to figure that one out.

[Patler]

While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Actually, there is. You need to read some of the studies of the long range climatologist committees, who consider anything less than 100 years to be a "current condition". They understand the oceans as having the biggest effect on global temperature fluctuations. In their studies, the current climate changes are almost identical to what occurred about 300-500 years ago, including the melting of the polar ice cap. It is this melting that will eventually cool down the ocean currents, leading to another cool period such as that which caused the various famines in Europe about 150-200 years ago, and the "year without a summer" in North America. These followed extended periods (100-200) years during which temperatures in Europe were so warm that crops were grown in regions that will not support them even today. They see the current conditions, and those leading up to it as a part of a well-documented cycle lasting more than about 400 years.

There are a lot of contrary positions to the popular global warming theories, they just are not as well publicized because they do not carry the shock value of the popular ones. It is an issue that is still open to much study and understanding.

Which studies are you referring to?

Fair question. I had links to some recent ones for a "project" I was involved with about two years ago. Can't seem to locate them quickly this morning, but will look in the evening when I have more time. Very interesting reading. I first became aware of these studies at a seminar about 10-15 years ago, and periodically update myself.

Personally, I have no strong opinion either way on the issue of global warming, because I do not feel my own knowledge is adequate to form one, even though I have been educated and have worked in the sciences my entire adult life. The one thing I do understand is how little I know, and how little is actually "for certain" when it comes to issues such as this. What we think we know is often proven false at a later time. I will admit to strong skepticism regarding "the sky is falling" positions of the most vocal groups. Do we have problems that need to be addressed? Of course. Is it as bad or as impactful as Gore and others claim? I have my doubts.

[hoosier]

While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Actually, there is. You need to read some of the studies of the long range climatologist committees, who consider anything less than 100 years to be a "current condition". They understand the oceans as having the biggest effect on global temperature fluctuations. In their studies, the current climate changes are almost identical to what occurred about 300-500 years ago, including the melting of the polar ice cap. It is this melting that will eventually cool down the ocean currents, leading to another cool period such as that which caused the various famines in Europe about 150-200 years ago, and the "year without a summer" in North America. These followed extended periods (100-200) years during which temperatures in Europe were so warm that crops were grown in regions that will not support them even today. They see the current conditions, and those leading up to it as a part of a well-documented cycle lasting more than about 400 years.

There are a lot of contrary positions to the popular global warming theories, they just are not as well publicized because they do not carry the shock value of the popular ones. It is an issue that is still open to much study and understanding.

Which studies are you referring to?

Fair question. I had links to some recent ones for a "project" I was involved with about two years ago. Can't seem to locate them quickly this morning, but will look in the evening when I have more time. Very interesting reading. I first became aware of these studies at a seminar about 10-15 years ago, and periodically update myself.

Personally, I have no strong opinion either way on the issue of global warming, because I do not feel my own knowledge is adequate to form one, even though I have been educated and have worked in the sciences my entire adult life. The one thing I do understand is how little I know, and how little is actually "for certain" when it comes to issues such as this. What we think we know is often proven false at a later time. I will admit to strong skepticism regarding "the sky is falling" positions of the most vocal groups. Do we have problems that need to be addressed? Of course. Is it as bad or as impactful as Gore and others claim? I have my doubts.

OK. Please post them when you get a chance.

[GoPackGo]

Does Honda not sell an assload of Pilots and CRVs? Do you not see a million Tundras and Tacomas cruising around? There will always be a need for larger vehicles, even trucks. Toyota and Honda are putting together a far superior product since they have better talent designing their stuff. I think the gas mileage has very little to do with GMs collapse. Let's not forget they declared bankruptcy once before.

I bought a Pilot because its cheaper and it got good reviews. I suspect thats same reason others have bought them as well. People can't afford to spend $40k-$50k on the vehicles that GM puts out. I've owned a $40k GM SUV and its quality and comfort is superior to the Pilot I own now. If I had more money I would have bought a GM SUV again. You ripping on the talent level of engineers in the USA is laughable and baseless, and typical of the unwarranted nonsense and douchebaggery you bring into conversations.

[mraynrand]

1) GM is adding shifts to it's assembly lines in Ohio for it's smaller cobalt and G6 (G5?) Pontiac. So the change in number of workers is smaller than you think. But this is just sound (if a bit delayed) economic reaction. And it's good. People who don't need trucks won't buy them and the people who need them will continue to do so. More people driving smaller cars means the gas supply will go farther, right?

2) Global warming. I encourage everyone to read "The Deniers" - it's a collection of newspaper articles updated for a book by a Canadian environmentalist reporter. He stuck to the argument from authority and basically found incredibly talented and successful scientists - all at the very top of their fields - who have, in mostly peer reviewed journal articles, demolished most of the major claims of AGW. Interestingly, although each scientists disproved a portion of AGW, they each supported the general scientific consensus that AGW was happening, demonstrating the power of an accepted theory. The result: what we all instinctively know to be true - that human activity is altering our environment, that it pays to be environmentally conscious, but that it also pays to insist on accurate, non agenda-driven scientific research so that we better know what's happening and can make rational, not hysterical, decisions about how to protect our environment.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hoosier, I'll give you credit for being slightly less lame than usual in that you at least made an effort.

Your stats on mean temperature since 1850, however, were effectively countered by Patler's longer term historical approach.

Your assertion that most of the scientific community believes in that manmade gw theory is incorrect. That may be the propaganda your side spews, but the fact is, there are at least as many scientists in general and meteorologists in particular on the anti- side as on the pro- side.

The situation the gw fanatics can't answer--one of them--is that the series of warm years around the turn of this century occurred well after the maximum period of human pollution. If fact, after several decades immediately after World War II of max production of greenhouse gases, the wacko environmentalists were talking about global COOLING. And now, for no apparent reason, the warming seems to be leveling off and even dropping slightly. NOT mere normal cycles, you say?

Then there are ocean temperatures--usually cited by gw freaks as more significant than air temps, because they tend to fluctuate less in the short term. From 1937, when these could first be accurately measured until the late 70s, these were actually COOLING--again through the max years of manmade pollution. That gave rise to the near-panic by environmentalists about global COOLING--the well-known Time Magazine cover story that Dennis Miller paraded on to the Leno show.

Since the late 70s, ocean temps have risen--changing the tune of the wacko environmentalists to global WARMING. The fact is, though, current ocean temps have not even risen to 1937 levels.

And then there's the icecaps--the well-known spewage about polar bears, etc. Yet total mass of the Greenland icecap has INCREASED by a greater amount than the north polar and Antarctic caps together have decreased. Go figure that--and come up with a nice compatible with manmade gw explanation.

[Patler]

While there is debate over specific aspects of the theory, why is there no debate among credible experts about these two FACTS: (1) that climate changes in the 20th century cannot be explained as simple historical fluctuation, and (2) that human production and consumption has been the major cause of 20th century climate changes?

Actually, there is. You need to read some of the studies of the long range climatologist committees, who consider anything less than 100 years to be a "current condition". They understand the oceans as having the biggest effect on global temperature fluctuations. In their studies, the current climate changes are almost identical to what occurred about 300-500 years ago, including the melting of the polar ice cap. It is this melting that will eventually cool down the ocean currents, leading to another cool period such as that which caused the various famines in Europe about 150-200 years ago, and the "year without a summer" in North America. These followed extended periods (100-200) years during which temperatures in Europe were so warm that crops were grown in regions that will not support them even today. They see the current conditions, and those leading up to it as a part of a well-documented cycle lasting more than about 400 years.

There are a lot of contrary positions to the popular global warming theories, they just are not as well publicized because they do not carry the shock value of the popular ones. It is an issue that is still open to much study and understanding.

Which studies are you referring to?

Fair question. I had links to some recent ones for a "project" I was involved with about two years ago. Can't seem to locate them quickly this morning, but will look in the evening when I have more time. Very interesting reading. I first became aware of these studies at a seminar about 10-15 years ago, and periodically update myself.

Personally, I have no strong opinion either way on the issue of global warming, because I do not feel my own knowledge is adequate to form one, even though I have been educated and have worked in the sciences my entire adult life. The one thing I do understand is how little I know, and how little is actually "for certain" when it comes to issues such as this. What we think we know is often proven false at a later time. I will admit to strong skepticism regarding "the sky is falling" positions of the most vocal groups. Do we have problems that need to be addressed? Of course. Is it as bad or as impactful as Gore and others claim? I have my doubts.

OK. Please post them when you get a chance.

Just getting back into this. Most of the links I had from a couple years ago are now dead, so I did a little new research for current information. I stumbled on to the following Senate report regarding 400+ prominent dissenters in the Scientific community. I haven't done more than skim it, so I don't vouch for it, but there are a lot of links within it to follow up on. Many of the general comments relate to the long rang climate issue I was referring to, and there is mention of the deabte over whether CO2 levels drive the temperature increase, or vice versa:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport