NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

1614008886366.png
 
Isaac said:
Does that actually make sense though, as to who contributes more to the United Nations? Does it make more sense to use how much money they have in total, or is it very important how much money they have per person?

Regardless of either, or the answer, I'd say it matters a lot how much a nation is benefitting from the UN.

Really, though, this is a non-issue. What people are probably thinking about (but not saying), has to do with Trump's focus on other countries paying "their fair share". And this was primarily focused on NATO, not the United Nations, so we're arguing about nothing here. and NATO was based on GDP, only many countries hadn't met their commitments ... Germany was one of the biggest violators, and still is.
Click to expand...
UN seem to be sticking their nose in the Paris Climate Agreement, that's why I brought it up. They also seem to be using the US Mail symbiology in the snowy picture in #693
 
I think he had a legit point about NATO though
 
Take a country like Africa. They are broke. Imagine they benefited considerably. They still can't afford to pay much relative to the other countries, because they just don't have the money. So then you have a choice: take a smaller amount of money or none at all.
 
Jon said:
Take a country like Africa. They are broke. Imagine they benefited considerably. They still can't afford to pay much relative to the other countries, because they just don't have the money. So then you have a choice: take a smaller amount of money or none at all.
Click to expand...
Hence the formula should probably be a balance between multiple factors. The relative influence wielded, the benefit, the capacity for payment, probably more I am not thinking of.
 
The UN should be mobile, what ever country unfortunate enough to host it should foot the bill for five years. Then though a lottery the next sucker is selected.
 
All kidding aside, the UN does serve a useful purpose. Like spying on other members. That's probably where Obama bugged Angela Merkel's cell phone. So it's good for something.
 
Last edited:
#693
Click to expand...
I'm so jealous that they have drive up mail boxes. Connecticut got "woke" and replaced all the perfectly good drive up boxes with "safe" boxes that you have to get out of your car to use. Very customer "friendly". I'm sure we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars just to P*SS off the customers by replacing perfectly good boxes that worked with new boxes that are an annoyance. Do we really have this kind of problem with people actually stealing mail from the drive up boxes?
 
It's been a LOOONG time since I lived at a house that had a regular mailboxes. Kansas City MO was it, I guess. Any house built >1980 in Arizona (cities, at least) seem to have the combined mailboxes crap. I loved traditional mailboxes too. Then again, occasionally you'll get hooligans with baseball bats taking to mailboxes on bikes, at which time the combined ones don't look so bad. But I think a traditional mailbox is a beautiful thing - and they were so endlessly customizable too! You could really show "yourself" in your mailbox back then.
 
Isaac said:
Hence the formula should probably be a balance between multiple factors. The relative influence wielded, the benefit, the capacity for payment, probably more I am not thinking of.
Click to expand...
I didn't for one minute intend to imply that it is based only on GDP per capita, but rather it might be a factor included in the mix. I am sure the formula is more complex than that. Wonder what the algo is.
 
Why is NASA, of all institutions, using the debunked Cook report as evidence that 97 percent or more of scientists agree that climate change is likely due to human actions? The circled footnote refers to the Cook report.

1616263260678.png

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Some arguments against the Cook Report : https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/david_friedman_14.html

To me, the Cook report is a deliberate deception, by obfuscating details in order to push a predetermined narrative. If the case is so strong, why the need to do this? Rely on the merits of your argument, not on aggregating groups of opinion A and opinion B, and saying that (opinion A + opinion B) numbers of people believe in opinion A. That is fake news. I've had enough of fake news!!

What disappoints me is that a revered institution such as NASA would engage in this type of falsehood. Then again, these places are made up of people and people are political, even scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve R.
Today's Environmentalists Are Really Luddites
Replies
5
Views
904
Pat Hartman
P
Uncle Gizmo
Solar won't work without the Sun...
Replies
8
Views
752
Pat Hartman
P
I
If a record is more than 5 years old write it down by 20% per year until £0, (but by months)
Replies
13
Views
580
CJ_London
C
Cotswold
Is there a Plan?
Replies
5
Views
299
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
J
Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read.
Replies
19
Views
539
moke123
moke123

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom