cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

201 posts in this topic

You can't seriously start with that! ahahahahaha

 

As Armstrong likes to say - 'follow the money'. The whole climate change thing is heavily politicised - if you disagree, research money grants are where the government wants to give money. From the opposite side, Abbott did the same with respect to removing funding organisations that promoted climate change. 

 

link

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooooo you are saying the only scientists with a potential conflict of interest are the ones paid by the government and corporate scientists are more noble or something?

 

Or did you just want to apply some folk wisdom to a problem? Gonna rock out some homespun school of hard knocks stuff soon? Ohhhh I hope so! Please an anecdote about the wasteful and useless staff at _your_ own place of employment (do not admit that logically if they hire sh*t people and you work there it means anything).

 

(and, f*ck me, if you want to follow Armstrongs "follow the money" ask yourself why a predictor extraordinaire would have to sell subscriptions to his stuff? Hell he has even claimed that the market was like an ATM for him)

 

Conflicting logical stances are not always indicative of cognitive dissonance but they are a good place to start. Usually I find it is a self doubt issue. Distrust anyone "smarter" than you and disparage anyone "dumber". For me strongly indicative of people not confident in their own place in the world to accept that "other people can know more".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooooo you are saying the only scientists with a potential conflict of interest are the ones paid by the government and corporate scientists are more noble or something?

 

Or did you just want to apply some folk wisdom to a problem? Gonna rock out some homespun school of hard knocks stuff soon? Ohhhh I hope so! Please an anecdote about the wasteful and useless staff at _your_ own place of employment (do not admit that logically if they hire sh*t people and you work there it means anything).

 

(and, f*ck me, if you want to follow Armstrongs "follow the money" ask yourself why a predictor extraordinaire would have to sell subscriptions to his stuff? Hell he has even claimed that the market was like an ATM for him)

 

Conflicting logical stances are not always indicative of cognitive dissonance but they are a good place to start. Usually I find it is a self doubt issue. Distrust anyone "smarter" than you and disparage anyone "dumber". For me strongly indicative of people not confident in their own place in the world to accept that "other people can know more".

 

Nope. Both corporate & government funding of research can be made in order to arrive at an outcome. Just read up on the research funding provided by the tobacco industry to defend their views.

As far as the rest of your diatribe Tor, including Armstrong, feel free to disagree. At least I don't find Armstrong a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Who says there is a consensus on climate change amongst the thousands of scientists worldwide? It certainly seems to be exists amongst on those who depend on government grants for research!

 

A list of international scientific organisations that endorse human induced climate change...

 

 

 

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

  1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
  2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
  3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
  4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
  5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 
  6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
  7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
  9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  10. Académie des Sciences, France
  11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
  12. Academy of Athens
  13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
  14. Academy of Science of South Africa
  15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
  16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
  18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
  19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
  23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
  24. African Academy of Sciences
  25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
  26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
  27. American Academy of Pediatrics
  28. American Anthropological Association
  29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 
  32. American Astronomical Society
  33. American Chemical Society
  34. American College of Preventive Medicine
  35. American Fisheries Society
  36. American Geophysical Union
  37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
  38. American Institute of Physics
  39. American Meteorological Society
  40. American Physical Society
  41. American Public Health Association
  42. American Quaternary Association
  43. American Society for Microbiology
  44. American Society of Agronomy
  45. American Society of Civil Engineers
  46. American Society of Plant Biologists
  47. American Statistical Association
  48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
  49. Australian Academy of Science
  50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  51. Australian Coral Reef Society
  52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  53. Australian Institute of Physics
  54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
  55. Australian Medical Association
  56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
  57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  58. Botanical Society of America
  59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  60. British Antarctic Survey
  61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  62. California Academy of Sciences
  63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  64. Canadian Association of Physicists
  65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  66. Canadian Geophysical Union
  67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
  69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
  70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
  71. Center for International Forestry Research
  72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
  74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
  75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
  76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  77. Crop Science Society of America
  78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
  79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  80. Ecological Society of America
  81. Ecological Society of Australia
  82. Environmental Protection Agency
  83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  84. European Federation of Geologists
  85. European Geosciences Union
  86. European Physical Society
  87. European Science Foundation
  88. Federation of American Scientists
  89. French Academy of Sciences
  90. Geological Society of America
  91. Geological Society of Australia
  92. Geological Society of London
  93. Georgian Academy of Sciences 
  94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
  95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  96. Indian National Science Academy
  97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
  98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
  99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
  100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
  101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
  102. InterAcademy Council
  103. International Alliance of Research Universities
  104. International Arctic Science Committee
  105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
  106. International Council for Science
  107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
  109. International Union for Quaternary Research
  110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
  112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
  113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
  116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
  117. l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
  119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
  120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
  122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
  123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
  124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
  125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
  126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
  127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
  128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
  130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
  131. National Association of State Foresters
  132. National Center for Atmospheric Research 
  133. National Council of Engineers Australia
  134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
  135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  136. National Research Council
  137. National Science Foundation
  138. Natural England
  139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
  141. Network of African Science Academies
  142. New York Academy of Sciences
  143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
  144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
  146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
  147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
  148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
  149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
  150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
  151. Polish Academy of Sciences
  152. Romanian Academy
  153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
  154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
  155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
  156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  157. Royal Irish Academy
  158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
  162. Royal Society of Canada
  163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
  164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
  165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  166. Russian Academy of Sciences
  167. Science and Technology, Australia 
  168. Science Council of Japan
  169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
  170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
  174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
  176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
  177. Society of American Foresters  
  178. Society of Biology (UK)  
  179. Society of Systematic Biologists
  180. Soil Science Society of America 
  181. Sudan Academy of Sciences
  182. Sudanese National Academy of Science
  183. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  184. The Wildlife Society (international)
  185. Turkish Academy of Sciences
  186. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  187. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  188. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  189. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
  190. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  191. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
  192. World Federation of Public Health Associations
  193. World Forestry Congress
  194. World Health Organization
  195. World Meteorological Organization
  196. Zambia Academy of Sciences
  197. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

 

The latest surveys place the level of support among active published climate researchers at ~97%

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

2. The Ice age consensus 40 years ago may perhaps not have been as wide as today, but it made it to the mass publication newspapers, which is where is first read it and it appeared for a while. It then dissipated to oblivion, which is what I expect again ... just like Flannery's predictions. The more it reaches a religious status, the more it resembles a mania that will pop.

 

 

Plenty of stories make it into the mainstream media. Here's one from the 30's.

 

It's why I don't cite newspaper articles as evidence in scientific discussions when I can cite peer reviewed science papers...

 

 

 

#5. Photographs Prove Man Flies on Lung-Powered Plane

flight.jpg

The Story:

OK, so maybe Fox News and the Chinese government aren't bastions of journalistic integrity. Maybe you'd be more impressed by a story that fooled nearly every major American newspaper with the 1930s equivalent of a sh*tty photoshop?

Flight had been a dream possessed by man long before the Wright Brothers built and successfully flew their own airplane in an attempt to "get the f*ck out of boring-as-sh*t Kitty Hawk."

flight2.jpg

"Yes! Eat my sh*t, Kitty Hawk!"

In 1934, a pilot in Germany completed something that sounded almost too good to be true. Reporters confirmed pilot, Erich Kocher, invented a flying device powered by the lungs of the person strapped to it and even included a photograph to prove it.

flight3.jpg

The Truth:

According to the Museum of Hoaxes , the International News Photo wire agency picked up the news and almost every major American newspaper printed the story and the photograph on their front page. The photo and the story turned out to be part of an elaborate hoax by a German magazine for their April Fools' Day issue.

The wire agency and the news outlets that fell for the joke failed to spot some glaring clues from the original story. The original spelling of Kocher's name was "Koycher," a German word meaning to wheeze or gasp. Sources also claimed the device turned the pilot's carbon dioxide into a fuel that powered a small motor, in laughable defiance of even Depression-era laws of physics. Oh, and Kocher appears to have an elongated snow shoe coming out of his ass.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so despite you knowing that both sides are potentially conflicted you have decided that one is correct because it is :

 

A. The smallest number of people (but they are all claiming to be smarted than you at this thing)

B. The boringest answer (Rocket cannons to get to work are for younf whippersnappers)

C. The answer that keeps you living a life you obviously think is a put down upon life (seriously I met you, and my mistake of % versus dollars was hilarious despite it being pretty obvious to anyone with an interest in the area knowing exactly what I meant)

D. Created by a cabal of people you think are incompetent (you think incompetents can trick the world but competents can't do it better)

 

Hell if you were riding high on the hog I would completely understand that you don't want the status quo changed. But you're not! why on earth would you want to support the people f*cking you over?

 

This to me is the whole republican  thing in the states. They aren't making your life better why the hell would you support them? I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A list of international scientific organisations that endorse human induced climate change...

 

 

The latest surveys place the level of support among active published climate researchers at ~97%

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

 

Plenty of stories make it into the mainstream media. Here's one from the 30's.

 

It's why I don't cite newspaper articles as evidence in scientific discussions when I can cite peer reviewed science papers...

 

Looks like Armstrong is not the only one who is using the term 'follow the money'!

 

 

 

...In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity...

... Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fear mongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment....

 

The moment governments talk about taxes to solve the problem, it becomes a politcised issue for governments desperate for money. No better example than the 'temporary' fuel levy introduced by the NSW government to fund fixing black spots on NSW road. Somehow temporary became permanent. I'd have no problems with global warming being fed to the masses if people had the option of opting out from paying the extra taxes by governments desperate for cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so despite you knowing that both sides are potentially conflicted you have decided that one is correct because it is :

 

A. The smallest number of people (but they are all claiming to be smarted than you at this thing)

B. The boringest answer (Rocket cannons to get to work are for younf whippersnappers)

C. The answer that keeps you living a life you obviously think is a put down upon life (seriously I met you, and my mistake of % versus dollars was hilarious despite it being pretty obvious to anyone with an interest in the area knowing exactly what I meant)

D. Created by a cabal of people you think are incompetent (you think incompetents can trick the world but competents can't do it better)

 

Hell if you were riding high on the hog I would completely understand that you don't want the status quo changed. But you're not! why on earth would you want to support the people f*cking you over?

 

This to me is the whole republican  thing in the states. They aren't making your life better why the hell would you support them? I just don't get it.

 

Not sure what you're smoking ATM, but I said that where there is money to be made, research grants can be provided to expect desired outcomes. As I posted to SC's post, the moment there is money to be made, the pressure is on ensuring the 'right' results are published. Again, provide the 'opt out' of new taxes option and you can believe climate change as much as you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Armstrong is not the only one who is using the term 'follow the money'!

 

 
 

 

The moment governments talk about taxes to solve the problem, it becomes a politcised issue for governments desperate for money. No better example than the 'temporary' fuel levy introduced by the NSW government to fund fixing black spots on NSW road. Somehow temporary became permanent. I'd have no problems with global warming being fed to the masses if people had the option of opting out from paying the extra taxes by governments desperate for cash.

 

The link you posted shows that Willie Soon failed to disclose the 1.2 million funding he received from the fossil fuel industry. This is a definite no-no. He should have disclosed he funding.

 

The overwhelming majority of funding for scientific research comes from public funding it's true. But the left wing/right wing argument falls down. I wouldn't characterise the UK government as being left wing for example.

 

Like the tobacco industry funding research into the dangers of smoking, there are obvious conflicts arising when fossil fuel companies fund climate research.

 

For instance, the Global Climate Coalition (an industry funded organisation now defunct) sponsored a paper post the IPCC report back ~ 1995. The link attached shows the draft which was only disclosed as part of a court case. It was never publicly released.

 

The GCC launched a lobbying campaign claiming the role of greenhouse gases in climate change was not well understood when their own technical advisory group reported that:

 

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as COon climate is well established and cannot be denied. 

 

Worse still meeting minutes were also disclosed agreeing to drop the sections that refuted the contrarian arguments. Follow the money indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dude I opted out of your society when it wouldn't do what I wanted. That's why I don't pay taxes for your kids no more. I pay tax for japanese and singaporean kiddies now. You also have the choice to opt out if you no longer want to be forced into stuff.

 

Just do it instead of bitching.

 

Or not, whatever. I go for results in my life and all, you can choose the direction you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dude I opted out of your society when it wouldn't do what I wanted. That's why I don't pay taxes for your kids no more. I pay tax for japanese and singaporean kiddies now. You also have the choice to opt out if you no longer want to be forced into stuff.

 

Just do it instead of bitching.

 

Or not, whatever. I go for results in my life and all, you can choose the direction you want.

 

I have a family and I choose not to uproot them.

I doubt there will be much point jumping countries for the climate change taxes ahead as they're most likely going to translate into higher (tax) energy prices on a worldwide basis.

For somebody who promotes 'free' government services you have certainly chosen a 'strange' country to incorporate, that doesn't provide too many by western standards - anything to do with their low tax rates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The myth that there was a consensus among climate science of an ice age is a nice story. Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact. 

 

The below is an extract from a review of the literature from the American Meteorological Society in regard to global cooling predictions

 

 

So keen are some to perpetuate this myth they have doctored up fake time magazine covers to support their case.

 

This wasn't fake at the time, though I read it on the newspapers:

 

Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling

 

 

...Nearly 40 years later, that brief article is in the news again. In fact, Gwynne has just written a do-over of sorts, correcting the record in an article on Inside Science addressing his 1975 story. The purpose? So that “deniers of human-caused global warming” can’t use his story “as ammunition against the consensus of today’s climate scientists.”

 
In response to climate change skeptics who point to the article and say, “See, scientists were dead wrong in 1975, couldn’t they be wrong now too?,” Gwynne makes the point that science is always advancing and is clearly better now than it was 40 years ago. “While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete,” he writes. “Our climate is warming—not cooling, as the original story suggested.”
 
Gwynne concedes that he got a little “over-enthusiastic” in the original article and highlights some of the failings of science journalism in general—science writers should “seek out what the science doesn’t imply as well as what it does,” he suggests.
 
But his broader point—that “the vast majority of climatologists now assure us that Earth’s atmosphere is not cooling. Rather it’s warming up”—is a welcome one....

 

So, the global cooling theory failed the test of time and advancement in science knowledge (along with many others throughout history) but the latest global warming is now irrefutable scientific fact! As I've said before, we won't know the answer for a couple of decades, but in the meantime broke governments are happy to impose taxes to 'solve' the problem!

 

BTW, can you find a United Nations report that conclusively states all studies to date have positively attributed all climate change to man–made causes”?

'Climate change' initially started as 'global warming', but the facts didn't meet the predictions (as 'experts' like Flannery found out with egg on face!), so now it is called climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link you posted shows that Willie Soon failed to disclose the 1.2 million funding he received from the fossil fuel industry. This is a definite no-no. He should have disclosed he funding.

 

The overwhelming majority of funding for scientific research comes from public funding it's true. But the left wing/right wing argument falls down. I wouldn't characterise the UK government as being left wing for example.

 

Like the tobacco industry funding research into the dangers of smoking, there are obvious conflicts arising when fossil fuel companies fund climate research.

 

For instance, the Global Climate Coalition (an industry funded organisation now defunct) sponsored a paper post the IPCC report back ~ 1995. The link attached shows the draft which was only disclosed as part of a court case. It was never publicly released.

 

The GCC launched a lobbying campaign claiming the role of greenhouse gases in climate change was not well understood when their own technical advisory group reported that:

 

 

Worse still meeting minutes were also disclosed agreeing to drop the sections that refuted the contrarian arguments. Follow the money indeed!

 

Yes that was a poor choice of a link. I didn't fully read it as I was pressed for family duties. I'll try and find the link to a report I read a while back from a couple of retired academics in the Uk on how research grants are being offered for climate research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody who promotes 'free' government services you have certainly chosen a 'strange' country to incorporate, that doesn't provide too many by western standards - anything to do with their low tax rates?

Not strange at all. Very sensible interim solution.

 

20 yrs in Australia of paying taxes and hoping for the sensible policies (funding education has an insane return, negative gearing is for the rich etc) coupled with backwards steps socially (blow up the darkies then lock up the survivors and raping them is insane, local fags can't get married is just icing on the cake) just got too much, obviously my taxes were not going where I wanted and when Penny said she wouldn't let the gays get married I realised it would never change. When Abbott took over I did what many people claim to intend to do and starting planning and implementing my departure.

 

So now I park my money where it doesn't strongly support those policies while I find a place I like. I might not agree with a lot of Singapore's policies but at least the money I give them is not likely to fund an air raid a yr (roughly speaking my taxes in Australia funded the munitions of an average sized air raid - that is a lot of dead people I am quite clearly complicit in). Maybe an angry glare from a cop at the local gay park would be my total input to their regime. I can live with that complicity.

 

Last time you went on this tirade I asked you a few times what you thought I should do to avoid your approprobium. You never answered. If you are going to continue the gripe at least say what you think I should do. Being angry at others without a desired outcome is not a good mental state to be in.

 

Obviously I don't expect you to but it is fun rubbing it in your face each time. Plus you might find a country I would like and I can go there and check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time you went on this tirade I asked you a few times what you thought I should do to avoid your approprobium. You never answered. If you are going to continue the gripe at least say what you think I should do. Being angry at others without a desired outcome is not a good mental state to be in.

 

Obviously I don't expect you to but it is fun rubbing it in your face each time. Plus you might find a country I would like and I can go there and check it out.

 

You mentioned that you might end up in Norway. They provide a lot of 'free' government services. Why not incorporate there as a support of such principle? Denmark also has lots of 'free' government services. They are also fairly neutral and progressive. So there you have two good ways of morally supporting the principle of 'free' government services. Just don't discuss it with your tax accountant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorporating in Norway would have huge benefits for me personally (I love the place), Denmark even more so (EU visa? yes please!). Given how much an EU visa costs in the government sanctioned grey area market (Spain etc) Norwegian taxes would be cheaper (and cheaper than Australian sole trader taxes) also quicker than the Polish marriage visa system (which also require me to live there).

 

As a relatively small company currently this is not so easy, mostly because I would have to go live there in any realistic sense of "functional". Plus most of my clients currently are Asia Pacific and  they like Singapore companies "You're not one of us, but you're close by". Singapore is, as I mentioned, english speaking and well geared up for someone that wants to set up a company without hiring too many more lawyers. Norway on the other is a sh*t fight.

 

Personally I am busy learning bayonet fencing and there are not so many people that did that in the war still alive but, obviously, they and their students are the ones to learn this best from, mostly that means Japan (Although Poland and France have some stuff). Which means, currently, I want live in Japan, ruling out Norway for the next few years.

 

So simple enough. I pay my taxes in Japan for the services I receive in Japan (actually I pay more than the average here).

 

That is just my life though, explaining why your accusations of me being a hypocrite are absurd.

 

The reality of the world is that _all_ governments should be spending more

1. on education. It has such a huge return on investment (for the right wing) and a huge impact on personalities (for the left) I can't see why it is up for debate. Your argument there seems to be "some of them waste it" unlike prior times...

2. on stopping the world dying. global weather change is not a good thing whatever caused it. Who cares about the cause? You not driving to work is not going to solve the problem.

3. getting us cool sh*t. See above, you should be flying to work or nude VR'ing to work or whatever. You need family time? you should f*cking get it. But everyone should (which means no private planes from beecroft)

 

Mostly your argument to me seems like sour grapes from someone that is pissed they didn't live the life they wanted, despite being one of the richest people in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorporating in Norway would have huge benefits for me personally (I love the place), Denmark even more so (EU visa? yes please!). Given how much an EU visa costs in the government sanctioned grey area market (Spain etc) Norwegian taxes would be cheaper (and cheaper than Australian sole trader taxes) also quicker than the Polish marriage visa system (which also require me to live there).

 

As a relatively small company currently this is not so easy, mostly because I would have to go live there in any realistic sense of "functional". Plus most of my clients currently are Asia Pacific and  they like Singapore companies "You're not one of us, but you're close by". Singapore is, as I mentioned, english speaking and well geared up for someone that wants to set up a company without hiring too many more lawyers. Norway on the other is a sh*t fight.

 

Personally I am busy learning bayonet fencing and there are not so many people that did that in the war still alive but, obviously, they and their students are the ones to learn this best from, mostly that means Japan (Although Poland and France have some stuff). Which means, currently, I want live in Japan, ruling out Norway for the next few years.

 

So simple enough. I pay my taxes in Japan for the services I receive in Japan (actually I pay more than the average here).

 

That is just my life though, explaining why your accusations of me being a hypocrite are absurd.

 

The reality of the world is that _all_ governments should be spending more

1. on education. It has such a huge return on investment (for the right wing) and a huge impact on personalities (for the left) I can't see why it is up for debate. Your argument there seems to be "some of them waste it" unlike prior times...

2. on stopping the world dying. global weather change is not a good thing whatever caused it. Who cares about the cause? You not driving to work is not going to solve the problem.

3. getting us cool sh*t. See above, you should be flying to work or nude VR'ing to work or whatever. You need family time? you should f*cking get it. But everyone should (which means no private planes from beecroft)

 

Mostly your argument to me seems like sour grapes from someone that is pissed they didn't live the life they wanted, despite being one of the richest people in the world.

 

Based on the tax rates shown here and as far as I'm aware, the tax law in Denmark doesn't allow too many deductions, can you please show how it is cheaper? Also note the GST rate differences.

 

Regarding your 3 points:

 

1. How is investing public monies in somebody who does not finish their course or in courses for which there is no demand or the supply much higher than the demand, be good return of tax money?

 

2. Who cares about the cause? Before you treat the symptom you need to have a clear understanding of the cause. Glad you're not a doctor/vet! It also leads to waste of tax payers money,

 

3. Not sour grapes. Just mostly over the concept of work. I'm just waiting for my kids to become independent before I consider winding down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwegian taxes would be cheaper.

28 is a smaller number than 30. Although my particular cost of living would be a lot lower in Norway which is really why in my mind it is significantly cheaper to live there.

 

1. Strawman argument.

2. Politicised beyond any chance of cause being agreed on any more than it currently is.

3. You're sick of work so everyone has gets no cool stuff? that is about as close to the definition of sour grapes as you can get.

 

Given the current situation and the current percentage of scientists supporting the idea what would ever make you change sides? I can't see it happening. I doubt there is anyone left capable of changing sides. Unless you think there is a likely chance of everyone agreeing your plan is to do nothing about the symptoms. The symptoms are still there though right? From memory you agree that change is occurring, you just don't think we caused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 is a smaller number than 30. Although my particular cost of living would be a lot lower in Norway which is really why in my mind it is significantly cheaper to live there.

 

1. Strawman argument.

2. Politicised beyond any chance of cause being agreed on any more than it currently is.

3. You're sick of work so everyone has gets no cool stuff? that is about as close to the definition of sour grapes as you can get.

 

Given the current situation and the current percentage of scientists supporting the idea what would ever make you change sides? I can't see it happening. I doubt there is anyone left capable of changing sides. Unless you think there is a likely chance of everyone agreeing your plan is to do nothing about the symptoms. The symptoms are still there though right? From memory you agree that change is occurring, you just don't think we caused it.

 

That answer of '28 < 30' is myopic. You would have to pay yourself an income subject to its income tax rate which then attracts the much higher GST/VAT. Also, my understanding is that Scandinavian countries allow less deductions against income, though I haven't looked at the fine detail.

 

1. Hardly strawman argument. Governments (certainly here) are struggling with the tertiary education rising costs. The cost of each student subsidized for tertiary education (especially if it was free) is substantial,

3. Not sour grapes at all. Congrats on anybody who can telecommute. I have never complained about anybody being able to re-arrange their work life to increase their private time.

 

If climate change is part of a natural cycle of the planet (we've had ice ages and subsequent warming, which I can't see how they also were caused by humans), then  I'd want the current theory to stand the test of time before causing upheaval to society by imposing major energy costs, especially when there is nothing currently available to fully replace fossil fuels. If I was alive then, I'd be happy to review the accuracy of the current predictions in 25-40 years time. My bet is that they will follow the 'freezing earth' theory of the 1970's and Flannery's more current predictions. If I'm wrong, I certainly hope that technology has improved to the point of being able to fully replace fossil fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time in case you think the topic of this thread is how much people hate Norway or how much my life matters in the scheme of this thing:


Given the current situation and the current percentage of scientists supporting the idea what would ever make you change sides? I can't see it happening. I doubt there is anyone left capable of changing sides.

 

The question being "are you capable of changing your mind" given you insist on 100% consensus rather than like 99% or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time in case you think the topic of this thread is how much people hate Norway or how much my life matters in the scheme of this thing:

 

 

The question being "are you capable of changing your mind" given you insist on 100% consensus rather than like 99% or something.

 

Consensus can be nothing more than herd psychology. From the 'freezing' theory of the 1970's, I now want the test of time before on the theory before I change my mind. Otherwise we might all just follow every chicken little/Tim Flannery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree the symptoms (as you put it) exist? i.e. is the world climate apparently changing quite quickly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree the symptoms (as you put it) exist? i.e. is the world climate apparently changing quite quickly?

 

A lot of scientists say so. But as I replied to SC, can you find a United Nations report that conclusively states all studies to date have positively attributed all climate change to man–made causes?

 

It's a bit like treating the symptom for a human illness. If you don't diagnose correctly, there are consequences.

There is currently no viable alternative to fossil fuels. Start increasing substantially the cost of fuel/energy and see how the poor cope with it. Energy is at the core of most industries. Increase its cost or make its supply unreliable and see what happens to economic activity around the world.

 

But then we shouldn't let consequences get in the way of feeling good about ourselves, should we?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of scientists say so. But as I replied to SC, can you find a United Nations report that conclusively states all studies to date have positively attributed all climate change to man–made causes?

 

No-one will ever furnish you with such a report because nobody has never made that claim. The climate changes due to many influences.

 

Here's a nice little animation that illustrates the net effect of all of the major influences.

 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#

 

Note that aerosols cool the temperature. Some aerosols reflect sunlight/heat. Your global cooling theory was based on work done in the seventies where it was postulated that the effect of aerosols alone would outweigh the influence of increased CO2. 

 

Here's the author of the original article (Peter Gwynne) published in Newsweek recanting and stating how pissed off he is that people still use his article as proof that the current science should be ignored. 

 

 

I’m sure it’s clear by now that I accept the views of the National Academy, National Climate Assessment, Mann, and the huge majority of his fellow climatologists. Nevertheless, websites devoted to denying the existence of human-caused climate change—or at least promoting the idea that nothing should be done about it—continue to use my article to validate their thinking. In fact the article has reportedly become the most-cited article in Newsweek’s history.

Those who reject climate science ignore the fact that, like other fields, climatology has evolved since 1975. The certainty that our atmosphere is indeed warming stems from a series of rigorous observations and theoretical concepts that fit into computer models and an overall framework outlining the nature of Earth’s climate.

 

Scientists in general don't believe in things based on faith. It is not a religion. The 'belief' for want of a better word stems from actual measurable data and the testing of hypotheses to account for the data. If you think back to what the seventies was actually like compared to now it's clear we've come a long way.

 

Most scientists take great pleasure in shooting down others work. It raises your prestige in the scientific community if you can come up with a hypothesis that better fits the data. It is highly competitive in that regard. You're cleverer than the other guy. If that were not the nature of scientists we would never have advanced to where we are now so quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one will ever furnish you with such a report because nobody has never made that claim. The climate changes due to many influences.

 

Here's a nice little animation that illustrates the net effect of all of the major influences.

 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#

 

Note that aerosols cool the temperature. Some aerosols reflect sunlight/heat. Your global cooling theory was based on work done in the seventies where it was postulated that the effect of aerosols alone would outweigh the influence of increased CO2. 

 

Here's the author of the original article (Peter Gwynne) published in Newsweek recanting and stating how pissed off he is that people still use his article as proof that the current science should be ignored. 

 

 

Scientists in general don't believe in things based on faith. It is not a religion. The 'belief' for want of a better word stems from actual measurable data and the testing of hypotheses to account for the data. If you think back to what the seventies was actually like compared to now it's clear we've come a long way.

 

Most scientists take great pleasure in shooting down others work. It raises your prestige in the scientific community if you can come up with a hypothesis that better fits the data. It is highly competitive in that regard. You're cleverer than the other guy. If that were not the nature of scientists we would never have advanced to where we are now so quickly. 

 

The problem is the cost of getting it wrong with the theory of man-made climate change. Scientific history is littered with failed theories. If you could readily replace fossil fuels with clean energy, then who cares if the theory proves to be wrong in the future. But that is not the case. What is being suggested as a remedy will cause major economic upheaval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now