is back till the 25th
Odds and Ends
Store is back!
Bye bye ambassador
13 2, 3:03am
To argue this further would be ludicrous ]
You fail to recognize that in a warming world, models usually underestimate the coming change. Any statistical model usually underestimates the variability of a phenomenon. We already know that the phenomenon exists by the science of physics. Thus if you say that the climate models are wrong, it could only mean that the climate models underestimate the change. And any climate change means more future costs. THus you actually inadvertantly suggest that we are facing larger future costs than written in the IPCC reports. The climate model results are further watered down by the government representatives in the IPCC, because contrary to the make belief and obfuscation of the climate denialists (of which you very likely seem to be one), governments of independent states of the world have essentially done nothing to try to solve the AGW issue, for 30 years already. Why? Because the fossil fuels industry has been stronger than the citizens, after all, the fossil fuels industry got Trump elected.
[There is no consensus in the climate science, there are many in the man made global warming camp, and then there are some independent scientist that says otherwise.]
There is consensus in climate science.
Saying otherwise is not good enough. You would need to do and publish actual science to try refute the consensus (and do it repeatedly, separately by several independent scientists). So far, very few have tried that (publish climate science that would significantly overturn the IPCC findings) and all have failed, many have even joined the consensus.
[The problem is that it is a highly politicized field, and that the scientist that speaks in favior of man made global warming have a clear conflict of interest, as they are financed by the politicians that wants to use their result to push for further globalization.
In other words they are not credible.]
You are not credible.
The governments are together with the big fossil fuels business making sure that BAU (business as usual) would go on. For 30 years already.
[Thou want to hear the truth, then try to listen to people that speaks their opinion despite great personal risk.]
LOL. Who are those supposedly at great risk? The Koch Brothers?
And which kind of personal risk, exactly? Financial risk? That might be believable.
[And we do not NEED a third party in trade. If I for instance makes a deal with a coffee house in Indonesia and he negates on the contract, his words will be ruined. No one wants to trade with someone that is known to break contracts.]
But you DO need a third party. Otherwise nobody would have reason to believe your side of the story.
[Big merchant houses lives and dies by their reputation, but individual scammers can disappear in the hoard.]
See - that setup would only reinforce oligopoly or monopoly.
[The legal enforcement that states provide can help lend legitimacy to new companies that have yet to build up a reputation.]
In this case the states are the 3rd party.
[There is simply no need for WTO, and the simple fact that world trade worked just fine for thousands of years before its existence is proof of that.]
Yes and no.
Metal ages took thousands of years to spread to every corner of the continent.
WTO is needed to fight against global pollution. Before the onset of industrial age, there was less need for WTO. You can't solve a global Tragedy of the Commons problem without a global body like UN IPCC or WTO.
[I hate the protectionism of the EU, I want free trade with Russia, our pig farmers have suffered a lot from the EU embargo. I want friendly relations, and I don’t care what Putin does in his own back yard, as I said, it is his back yard, and we need to respect that.]
Your attitude is exactly what made Russia so reckless.
Russia should have been sanctioned to submission since the first Chechen War or the Abkhaz conflict or the Moldova conflict. The same thing that is happening in Ukraine for the last years has been going on in other places for 25+ years already, nonstop. In some places Kremlin has upgraded its occupation troops / green men to the status of "peacekeepers".
[If WWIII happens it would be because of globalist, Putin have every right to defend his country.]
In which borders exactly? And how would the globalists be at fault? Are there any globalist military troops in Russia taking part in any military conflict? Do tell me, because that might be interesting.
[Okay thou need to know why there are two, and only two dimensions in the political spectrum.]
There are thousands of political dimensions.
You can't reduce those thousands of dimensions into 2 dimensions without loss of information.
The current political system is faulty by design. It cannot possibly (not in theory and not in practice) adequately represent the will of the citizenry. Only direct democracy can. Or a system that besides direct democracy also has some representative democracy.