North Pole Movement

Heard today the average Joe here pays 42% tax. Toss in 4 months of freeze ur arse off, and what's not to like about Canada?

Also, read on the government EI site, that the median wage in Alberta is 26.85- if recall correctly...want to cry. That number is prolly skewed by the waaay over payed gov employee's, of which there are plenty.

Thanks for bringing it, LWD.

 

I thought it was more like 50% or so since everything was free up there.

 

This is hardly anything new to anybody now in 2014. Are you saying, that all those countries in that democracy top ten survey have some kind of "raw", unlimited democracy with oppressed minorities? We all know, that that is not the case, at least not in any significant way.

For me it feels like you are trying to create non existing or mostly theoretical "dangers" of democracy, when in reality you only want to find excuses for your inability to accept and obey the official, democratic authorities, if you do not personally agree with them...

In other words - you did not have anything to contradict my writing with...

As I have written before, you don't seem to know what the socialism really is - or what that word internationally means. Your usage of that word seems to have been influenced by local national politics, where it perhaps has been/is used as an incorrect label for political enemies. I am not a socialist (maybe you would disagree), but still understand the necessity of moderate taxation and governing institutions.

Am not pretending to be an expert of US States, but it seems like California is often (one of) the forerunner(s), which the others later follow...

As you have been already explained, Europe is very versatile, as is the European Union and even the Euro-zone, which are all different entities. AFAIK many US citizens do not really know much about the rest of the world, at least not as much as e.g. the Europeans in general do. This conversation seems to support that impression...

The taxation is only one of the aspects of real income, standard of living, quality of living and overall happiness of life. In general the US holidays are very short, the working hours very long, the health care very expensive, the education also very expensive and so on and so on. Of course if you are wealthy enough those obstacles can be handled, but more and more Americans seem to have problems. The taxation percentage would definitely not be my only factor, quite possibly not even the most important one, when deciding the country of residence.

It's however good that you live there and I live here, since neither of us would prefer to change...!

 

If that article had been for me the first and the only one about this subject I would have been doubtful. Since it is only one of countless articles from myriads of sources during several decades I have no need any more to be that cynical.

The issue you don't seem to get is that we don't need to buy that insurance since we all are already insured - by national health care. Also we don't have to pay for that university education (or two of them - or three) since we have already done it - by paying taxes. Also the university students - and all other students as well for that matter - get a montly allowance up to 298 euros, plus state backed cheap loan, plus cheap accommodation.

The annual paid holiday is five weeks, except some have six - plus ten annual public holidays. The paid maternity (parental) leave is abt 10,5 months. After that you (or more often your spouse) can get stay home support until the child is three years old. The meals in the schools for under 18 are free etc. etc.

We get quite a lot for our tax "buck". Of course, as I commented earlier, none of this matters if you are wealthy, but quite a many are not - even in the USA... Of course you can always argue that you want to make all the relevant decisions yourself, but it seems that this system creates a better living environment also for the ones, who could easily afford everything by themselves.

 

The "proglobal warming faction" = the vast majority of the credible scientific world.

To prove something with 100 % accuracy is very difficult, almost impossible. Still the extremely meaningful statement of "there is no doubt" should be enough to any amateur to pay attention - and to react accordingly. Failing to do so is either stupid or next to criminal - depending on your post.

In individual case it is indeed difficult. For longer period the scientists with the statistics, instruments, education and experience can make conclusions - as they have done. I don't have the competence to ignore them - neither do the deniers.

That's exactly what I'm talking about - the "poisoned" food. In Finland there's also choice - but the limits are tighter.

The choice in the USA has resulted in popularity of extremely unhealthy food and widespread obesity - no that we were that much better. That is however a different thing and not the one I was talking about.

The source I presented indeed had many areas starting from customer satisfaction issues and indeed the USA did well in many of them. Many of the charts also only showed the progress - not the actual figures. It's difficult to tell if "improved" is better than "declined", if you don't know the starting points. I however picked the areas which IMHO gave the best picture in issues regarding the safety of the food.

The more you use pesticides, the more you have them in the food. The pesticides are not good for your health.

When reading surveys one should naturally always read them carefully enough to understand, what they tell and especially what they don't tell. One also should investigate several surveys from different sources and from different angles to be able to get a broader view.

Maybe so, but if you are not an educated and qualified researcher of that particular field one can hardly blame anyone for doubting your credibility.

 

That's debatable, and depends who you ask.

 

I'm "asking" the credible scientific world, which means the scientists with the education and expertise on climatology - not "scientists" nor politicians paid by oil companies.

 

So you're picking and choosing who you want to deem "credible", and then betraying your own bias with the comment about everyone else being "paid by oil companies".
What about this guy; is he "credible"?
"The climate dragon is being poked, and eventually the dragon becomes pissed off enough to trash the place.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2719727/Were-f-ked-Climate-change-catastrophe-mankind-study-shows-methane-leaking-Arctic-Ocean-scientist-warns.html#ixzz39oF1RmyS

 

Are you saying that you don't have a bias? I admit that not all deniers are necessarily "paid by oil companies". Just some of them...

I don't know enough of that particular guy or his findings. He appears to be credible himself, but about his conclusions I'd prefer to have some additional, supporting views.

 

Al Gore. Ask him. Somebody did.

 

Well, I don't call people "deniers" for a start.

 

Over the years I have worked for several oil companies and I will first tell you that I found them to be very good citizens when it comes to environmental concerns....many of them changing their views from an earlier day in their policies. Before you criticize them for their "reported" view I suggest you spend some time googling the various companies and their official positions on climate concerns and I think you will stop throwing around "labels" to promote your own program. These companies depend on acceptance by the public for their products, methods, and overall welfare. You will find that they are not "deniers" but instead wish to find a way to continue to sell and provide product according to guidelines that are adaptable and able to be met without catastrophic demands and obstructions placed in their paths. For industry today, change is inevitable, but radical change is not always possible, so that they would accept being directed to practical and reasonable goals and changes if done in a thoughtful way leading all of us to a better place. I am a person who thinks you find many more deniers "outside" the oil industry and I am an admirer of much of industry that has found it more profitable to be safe in good policies for the public, and policies for their own workers well being and safety. Just my two cents on the "oil companies". Perhaps today.....they are not who they might have been in the past.....things change and we sometimes fail to give credit where credit is due.

 

Does that equal to as "not having a bias"...?

 

I wish that was the case and most likely it is with many individuals. The reality has however taught us(?) by many bitter lessons that unfortunately far too often that is NOT the case...

 

Yes. I recognize people are allowed to have a different opinion to mine without insulting them for it.

 

Just going to say it even if it gets ignored....if you were to see a world view map of the corridors of mass oil distribution and transit done by pipeline, trucks, ships or rail...you could conclude compared to airplanes, and autos and mass transit......oil transportation does not really have as bad a record as other things that have happened, considering how many times it must be transported before it is a complete product such as "plastics" that have replaced the steel industry to a large degree in our various economies around the world. For example, crude oil is extracted from under the ground, travels by truck, rail, or pipeline to a refinery where gasoline and diesel may be separated, then light ends may be collected (where plastics come from) and of coarse all these products get another ride to market or further refining. The light ends for plastics usually go to a second refinery where they are processed into possibly propane and plastics. The propane is again transported to markets and also the plastics are sent in the form of little beads to another facility to be made into pvc products or automobile parts of all description....another ride etc. So you see energy's trip is no short trip to market.....lots of opportunity for misfortune and accidents compared to other things. Although there have been too many accidents, I sincerely believe overall they have a pretty good record considering the level of greed and desire there is for use of energy related products........when is the last time you conserved or recycled and do you do that regularly or is your trash filled with recyclables from our level of acceptable greed that keeps up unreasonable demand on this sector of the economy. We can't just blame the resulting industry as we create the demand that drives it.

 

That statement has been shown to be rather deficient in factual support unless one has a very warped definition of "credible" and/or "majority". The few "studies" that promote it show serious errors in mehodology. I.e. it's another case of an attempt at "proof by assertion".

"no doubt" = definitive proof. The claim is only meaningful in a positive way if the evidence is there. The claim in the absence of solid proof is meaningful in the sense that one should be very careful of trusting those that make such claims. Falling for them indicates a clear lack of reasoning ability.

They can make conclusions about shorter term events as well. Both are questionable although the shorter the term the more so. However the clear failure of the models indicates that they there is still a very poor understanding of the subject. Indeed if one looks at the litterature some of the "denighers" seem to be more competent than many/most of the "supporters". Indeed depending on what exactly you are talking about the evidence runs from enough to raise some minor question to enough to bring serious doubt about the conclusions.

That was rather well refuted by the source you claimed supported your posiition.

And what makes you an expert on food safety? I'd certainly consider biological pathogens to be of considerable import but you seem to ignore them of course it's hardly surprising as they bring your assumptions to question.

Wrong answer. Some pesticides break down into harmless chemicals or do not contaminate the food at all. Others in small enough quantities are not at all harmful and may even be beneficial (note that Oxygen is harmful in strong enough concentrations). Furthermore just because Finland doens't use them doesn't mean that they aren't found in foods in Finalnd. What pecentage of Finnish food is imported and what are the regs on it?

If one can make a well reasoned and supported case for the survey being flawed then why should someone doubt it's credibility. Note that "qualified researchers" in many fields lack the understanding to create good surveys much less understand the statistics necessary to draw good conclusions from them. It's also worth noteing that we have seen a number of reports that make it clear that the CO2 is the problem crowd have deliberately tried to impede true scientific analysis of their position. Furthermore they have failed to respond to some of the more serious questions concerning their analysis.

 

That's what physics does.

"Simple physics"

 

Some examples of why this statement is, really not worth much at all:

"If you look at the literature, some of the clinically insane seem to be more qualified than many/most of the Republican Supporters."
"If you look at the literature, some of the Fascist supporters of Nazi-ism in the 1930's seem to be more competent than many/most Jews."

On one hand you are posing the few, and then "seem to be better" than many of the opposing view.

I posit it to you, that if you seek support on subjects with this condition, you'll find almost any position supported.

 

But it doesn't. Or we wouldn't have the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty.

"the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, in 1927, Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa."

Physics has "laws", which really only are theories, but well tested such.

So what Physics really wants is to be able to observe, and make predictions. Which is really kind of boring. But its when the predictions don't quite hold true in every case, that things get really interesting. That's where Physicists spend their entire time, thinking and observing that which we can't yet accurately predict.