This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding.
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative >track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due
to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate,
the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without
delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely
examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these
models. These data are directly related to the distribution of
temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution
of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of
wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and
particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans).
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in
situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to
significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics,
which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not
surprising that the results in various significant works such as
Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those
presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially
presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving
these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation
source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in
Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's
thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the
case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the
illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of
absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be
noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower
than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it
could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere,
regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to
encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum
are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. >Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements).
It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should
be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that
hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to
present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge.
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >>change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding.
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >>thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative >>track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due
to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate,
the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without
delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely
examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of
temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution
of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of
wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and
particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans).
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in
situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics,
which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those
presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving
these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation
source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in
Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's
thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the
case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the
illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of
absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be
noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower
than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it
could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere,
regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to
encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum
are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. >>Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements).
It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should
be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that
hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to
present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge.
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under
international agreements:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions
budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions
Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris
commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always - oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >>change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding.
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >>thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative >>track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due
to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate,
the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without
delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely
examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of
temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution
of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of
wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and
particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans).
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in
situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics,
which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those
presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving
these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation
source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in
Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's
thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the
case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the
illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of
absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be
noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower
than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it
could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere,
regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to
encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum
are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. >>Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements).
It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should
be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that
hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to
present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge.
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under
international agreements:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions
budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions
Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris
commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always - >oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >>>change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding. >>>
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >>>thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative >>>track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution
of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of
wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and
particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans).
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those
presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving
these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation
source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be
noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower
than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it
could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to
encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements).
It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge.
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>international agreements:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions
budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris
commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always - >>oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>>international agreements:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >>>>change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding. >>>>
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>>>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >>>>thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative
track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution >>>>of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of >>>>wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and >>>>particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). >>>>
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those >>>>presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving >>>>these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation >>>>source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be >>>>noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower >>>>than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it >>>>could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to >>>>encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). >>>>It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>>>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge. >>>
Given that it is normally those from the National Party that have
pushed the dictum of the "Sanctity of Contract", I would expect at
least a little of that sentiment to still be held by some on that
party, but if not I expect Winston Peters to be firm in not breaking
away from a major international agreement - as Foreign Minister he
will be aware that the EU has already started looking to only trade
with those supporting the Climate Change agreements; the future of our
trade, and particularly that relating to primary produce, would be in
danger if we pulled out. We do have some very undesirable contracts
entered into by previous governments - those relating to the sale of
state assets (1984 "Labour" and subsequent National-led Governments,
but perhaps especially the electricity 'reforms' led by Bradford that
are giving billions of dollars to private shareholders from previously
state owned assets, and increasing power bills for all New Zealanders)
- but you support the plunder and enrich the already wealthy" policies
of the far right, don't you Tony?
So no, some with a conscience in National, and Winston Peters for the
fun of it, would almost certainly stop the current government being so
stupid as to remove New Zealand from such an important agreement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions
budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris >>>commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:All I referred to was the "plunder and enrich the already wealthy"
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always -
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>>>international agreements:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate
change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding. >>>>>
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>>>>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and
thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative
track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution >>>>>of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of >>>>>wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and >>>>>particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). >>>>>
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables >>>>>across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those >>>>>presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving >>>>>these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the >>>>>results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the >>>>>atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation >>>>>source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2 >>>>>and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial >>>>>to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested >>>>>in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be >>>>>noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower >>>>>than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it >>>>>could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to >>>>>encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, >>>>>they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future >>>>>generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). >>>>>It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>>>>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge. >>>>
oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
Given that it is normally those from the National Party that have
pushed the dictum of the "Sanctity of Contract", I would expect at
least a little of that sentiment to still be held by some on that
party, but if not I expect Winston Peters to be firm in not breaking
away from a major international agreement - as Foreign Minister he
will be aware that the EU has already started looking to only trade
with those supporting the Climate Change agreements; the future of our >>trade, and particularly that relating to primary produce, would be in >>danger if we pulled out. We do have some very undesirable contracts
entered into by previous governments - those relating to the sale of
state assets (1984 "Labour" and subsequent National-led Governments,
but perhaps especially the electricity 'reforms' led by Bradford that
are giving billions of dollars to private shareholders from previously >>state owned assets, and increasing power bills for all New Zealanders)
There is no binding agreement, we are free to make our own decisions as a >country.You are wrong - and the relevant Minister has recently said that they
So no, some with a conscience in National, and Winston Peters for theIt is arguably not an important agreement, Do tell us why you think it is. See: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/paula-bennett-signs-historic-climate-change-agreement/UBODDVDRZUUVXZTRGL54LARSH4/
fun of it, would almost certainly stop the current government being so >>stupid as to remove New Zealand from such an important agreement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions >>>>budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>>>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris >>>>commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:27:30 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Childishly irrelevant. An entirely different and totally unrelated type of agreement. You are pathetic.
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always >>>-
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>>>international agreements:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate
change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding. >>>>>
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>>>>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and
thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial >>>>>narrative
track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution >>>>>of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of >>>>>wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and >>>>>particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). >>>>>
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables >>>>>across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those >>>>>presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving >>>>>these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the >>>>>results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the >>>>>atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation >>>>>source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2 >>>>>and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial >>>>>to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested >>>>>in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be >>>>>noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower >>>>>than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it >>>>>could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to >>>>>encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, >>>>>they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future >>>>>generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). >>>>>It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>>>>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge. >>>>
oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
Given that it is normally those from the National Party that have
pushed the dictum of the "Sanctity of Contract", I would expect at
least a little of that sentiment to still be held by some on that
party, but if not I expect Winston Peters to be firm in not breaking
away from a major international agreement - as Foreign Minister he
will be aware that the EU has already started looking to only trade
with those supporting the Climate Change agreements; the future of our >>trade, and particularly that relating to primary produce, would be in >>danger if we pulled out. We do have some very undesirable contracts
entered into by previous governments - those relating to the sale of
state assets (1984 "Labour" and subsequent National-led Governments,
but perhaps especially the electricity 'reforms' led by Bradford that
are giving billions of dollars to private shareholders from previously >>state owned assets, and increasing power bills for all New Zealanders)
- but you support the plunder and enrich the already wealthy" policies
of the far right, don't you Tony?
So no, some with a conscience in National, and Winston Peters for the
fun of it, would almost certainly stop the current government being so >>stupid as to remove New Zealand from such an important agreement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions >>>>budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>>>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris >>>>commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
And to show that at least the courts believe agreements are worth
complying with, see:
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=162456
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always - >>oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>>international agreements:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing climate >>>>change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding. >>>>
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do >>>>make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever and >>>>thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial narrative
track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Quote
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution >>>>of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of >>>>wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and >>>>particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). >>>>
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables
across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those >>>>presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole
reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate
is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving >>>>these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the
results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer
the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the
atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation >>>>source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature
and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2
and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial
to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested
in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in
a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be >>>>noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower >>>>than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it >>>>could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to >>>>encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves,
they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future >>>>generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). >>>>It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems >>>>burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge. >>>
Given that it is normally those from the National Party that have
pushed the dictum of the "Sanctity of Contract", I would expect at
least a little of that sentiment to still be held by some on that
party, but if not I expect Winston Peters to be firm in not breaking
away from a major international agreement - as Foreign Minister he
will be aware that the EU has already started looking to only trade
with those supporting the Climate Change agreements; the future of our
trade, and particularly that relating to primary produce, would be in
danger if we pulled out. We do have some very undesirable contracts
entered into by previous governments - those relating to the sale of
state assets (1984 "Labour" and subsequent National-led Governments,
but perhaps especially the electricity 'reforms' led by Bradford that
are giving billions of dollars to private shareholders from previously
state owned assets, and increasing power bills for all New Zealanders)
So no, some with a conscience in National, and Winston Peters for theIt is arguably not an important agreement, Do tell us why you think it is.
fun of it, would almost certainly stop the current government being so
stupid as to remove New Zealand from such an important agreement.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions
budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris >>>commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being
sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:20:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are a very stupid child. I have never supported any right wing stuff. So you can now post evidence that I have or be damned you little worm.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:All I referred to was the "plunder and enrich the already wealthy"
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:21:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2024 23:53:55 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:There is no binding agreement, we are free to choose our own path as always >>>>-
The other issue is of course the commitments that we have under >>>>>international agreements:
This is in connection with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing >>>>>>climate
change. Here is something to get a good read of and thus an understanding.
It seems to me that the authors are having a bet each way. However they do
make the point the fossil fuels are not clean and will not last forever >>>>>>and
thus need to be used carefully while looking forawrd to developing clean >>>>>>power.
If the world could get back onto this track rather than idealogial >>>>>>narrative
track that some are on we might make some progress.
The conclusion is somewhat long.
Quotehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456 >>>>>>
5. Conclusions
The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of >>>>>>publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due >>>>>>to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, >>>>>>the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence. Without >>>>>>delving into the accuracy of the utilized models, we should closely >>>>>>examine the possibilities of gathering reliable input data for these >>>>>>models. These data are directly related to the distribution of >>>>>>temperature on Earth's surface and in the atmosphere, the distribution >>>>>>of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere, the distribution of >>>>>>wind speed and direction, and the distribution of aerosols and >>>>>>particles in the atmosphere (clouds, aerosols above fluctuating oceans). >>>>>>
It is obvious that simultaneous measurements of these variables >>>>>>across the entire globe are not feasible, and averaging them in >>>>>>situations where strong nonlinear dependencies exist can lead to >>>>>>significant errors. Moreover, the atmosphere exhibits high dynamics, >>>>>>which further complicates such measurements. Therefore, it is not >>>>>>surprising that the results in various significant works such as >>>>>>Schildknecht (2020) and Harde (2013), differ greatly from those >>>>>>presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole >>>>>>reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially >>>>>>presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate >>>>>>is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. Resolving >>>>>>these dilemmas requires further experimental work to verify the >>>>>>results of theoretical studies at every possible stage. To answer >>>>>>the question of whether the additionally emitted CO2 in the >>>>>>atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas, it would be necessary,
among other things, to conduct additional research for a radiation >>>>>>source with a temperature similar to Earth's surface temperature >>>>>>and measure the absorption of thermal radiation in a mixture of CO2 >>>>>>and air at different temperatures and pressures, as is the case in >>>>>>Earth's atmosphere at various altitudes. It would also be beneficial >>>>>>to conduct field studies using an appropriate balloon, as suggested >>>>>>in (Kubicki et al., 2020b). By measuring the absorption of Earth's >>>>>>thermal radiation in atmospheric CO2 under atmospheric pressure in >>>>>>a cuvette placed in the basket of a balloon in the upper layers of the >>>>>>troposphere, we could obtain results that would decisively settle many >>>>>>controversial issues. For example, if it turned out, just like in the >>>>>>case of thermal radiation from the Moon, that there is no noticeable >>>>>>absorption of Earth's thermal radiation in CO2, it would mean that the >>>>>>spectrum of radiation emitted into space, as presented in the >>>>>>illustrative Fig. 1, exhibits a "funnel" created as a result of >>>>>>absorption in gases and water vapor in the atmosphere. It should be >>>>>>noted that CO2 absorption lines at different altitudes are narrower >>>>>>than CO2 absorption lines under atmospheric pressure, and thus, it >>>>>>could be authoritatively stated that we are dealing with atmospheric >>>>>>saturation, and the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, >>>>>>regardless of its altitude, will not be a greenhouse gas.
However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to >>>>>>encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum >>>>>>are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, >>>>>>they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future >>>>>>generations.
Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental >>>>>>degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). >>>>>>It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating >>>>>>systems
burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum >>>>>>products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). >>>>>>Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should >>>>>>be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that >>>>>>hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose.
In science, especially in the natural sciences, we should strive to >>>>>>present a true picture of reality, primarily through empirical knowledge. >>>>>
oh, I forgot you don't like that do you?
Given that it is normally those from the National Party that have
pushed the dictum of the "Sanctity of Contract", I would expect at
least a little of that sentiment to still be held by some on that
party, but if not I expect Winston Peters to be firm in not breaking
away from a major international agreement - as Foreign Minister he
will be aware that the EU has already started looking to only trade
with those supporting the Climate Change agreements; the future of our >>>trade, and particularly that relating to primary produce, would be in >>>danger if we pulled out. We do have some very undesirable contracts >>>entered into by previous governments - those relating to the sale of >>>state assets (1984 "Labour" and subsequent National-led Governments,
but perhaps especially the electricity 'reforms' led by Bradford that
are giving billions of dollars to private shareholders from previously >>>state owned assets, and increasing power bills for all New Zealanders) >>Abuse removed.
policies that were at the heart of the privatisations that New
Zealanders are still seeing increases in charges - it is clear that
you have supported such far-right programmes in the past, Tony - are
you now regretting that support?
No, you are lying,. There is no such binding agreement. Period. Produce the evidence that I am wrong, but you cannot. I defy you, child.There is no binding agreement, we are free to make our own decisions as a >>country.You are wrong - and the relevant Minister has recently said that they
will stick to the agreement. Are there any politicians in Parliament
who want to pull out of the agreement?
Meaningless - not binding.So no, some with a conscience in National, and Winston Peters for theIt is arguably not an important agreement, Do tell us why you think it is. >See: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/paula-bennett-signs-historic-climate-change-agreement/UBODDVDRZUUVXZTRGL54LARSH4/
fun of it, would almost certainly stop the current government being so >>>stupid as to remove New Zealand from such an important agreement.
Remember John Key and his use of 100% pure, Clean Green New Zealand?Irrelevant and off topic.
It sells our goods! Do you agree that being able to sell farm
products is important to New Zealand, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/government-plans-tree-planting-frenzy-as-report-shows-nz-no-longer-on-track-to-hit-climate-target/IWPXQM4DIBGYPGCOSDXWE3GFIQ/
New Zealand is no longer on track . . .
"The Government is no longer on track to meet its third emissions >>>>>budget, according to projections released with its draft Emissions >>>>>Reduction Plan today.
Significantly more work is needed to meet New Zealand�s Paris >>>>>commitments, which will likely result in billions of dollars being >>>>>sent offshore to pay for international climate mitigation."
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou wouldn't recognise common sense if it was writ in stone.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Common sense, that most uncommon talent.
Very little commonsense there
- construction does not have to dependNobody said or wrote that it does. Do read more carefully.
on billionaires;
poor Damien may be a wannabe, and his business isWe have not had a right wing government in recent history, not at least for 100 years. Fortunately this government is not right wing either.
probably doing better under the current government than under the
previous government from his perspective - he is a minor player in
dealing with insolvencies, which are always higher under right-wing >governments
(and particularly this far-right government) but clearlyWhat an ugly mind you have.
Damien still has to supplement that income by writing his extremist
fan-boy brain-vomits for the wealthy . . .
For a more balanced presentation that does give evidence for theWe have never had a right wing government, so your comment is inane.
analysis and suggestions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCAyIllnXY&ab_channel=McGuinnessInstituteTeHonongaWaka
It is from 14 years ago - but still relevant - ask yourself why the >government of the right, and particularly this one
, cut back onNone of which is remotely accurate. Just your imagination at work.
research, and think tax cuts for landlords is the top priority for
their government, and cut fair pay for women to pay for it . . .
Common sense, that most uncommon talent.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I
could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of
capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has
demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it
compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay
said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the
Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if
wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ
(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his
homes outside NZ and yachts).
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyI strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many places. >Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and they >paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has
demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it
compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay
said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the
Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if
wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ
(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his
homes outside NZ and yachts).
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), TonySeveral places - if you wish to research that then you could try google.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyI strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many places. >>Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and >>they
<[email protected]> wrote:
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has
demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it
compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay
said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ
(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his
homes outside NZ and yachts).
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), TonySeveral places - if you wish to research that then you could try google.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many places. >>>Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and >>>they
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has
demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay
said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ
(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:32:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyFully supported, you are incompetent and I should make allowances for you but sod that for a lark! Of course many would leave.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), TonySeveral places - if you wish to research that then you could try google.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many >>>>places.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has >>>>>demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay >>>>>said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ >>>>>(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and >>>>they
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony?
I knew you could not support your assertion that they would leave if a
wealth tax was imposed. That must be the common-sense in the Subject
. . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:32:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyFully supported, you are incompetent and I should make allowances for you but >sod that for a lark! Of course many would leave.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many >>>>>places.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has >>>>>>demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay >>>>>>said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ >>>>>>(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and >>>>>they
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony? >>>Several places - if you wish to research that then you could try google.
I knew you could not support your assertion that they would leave if a >>wealth tax was imposed. That must be the common-sense in the Subject
. . .
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:03:01 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you can't use google or any other source of information. OK I will help you to overcome that.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:32:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyFully supported, you are incompetent and I should make allowances for you but >>sod that for a lark! Of course many would leave.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I knew you could not support your assertion that they would leave if a >>>wealth tax was imposed. That must be the common-sense in the Subject
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many >>>>>>places.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has >>>>>>>demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay >>>>>>>said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ >>>>>>>(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and >>>>>>they
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>>>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony? >>>>Several places - if you wish to research that then you could try google. >>>
. . .
So where to?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:So you could only find three, and even then you do not know if the
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:03:01 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you can't use google or any other source of information. OK I will help you >to overcome that.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:32:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Fully supported, you are incompetent and I should make allowances for you but
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I knew you could not support your assertion that they would leave if a >>>>wealth tax was imposed. That must be the common-sense in the Subject
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many >>>>>>>places.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>>>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>>>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has >>>>>>>>demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>>>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay >>>>>>>>said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>>>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>>>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ >>>>>>>>(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>>>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies and
they
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>>>>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony? >>>>>Several places - if you wish to research that then you could try google. >>>>
. . .
sod that for a lark! Of course many would leave.
So where to?
They could choose from the United Arab Emirates, Bahamas, and Cayman Islands >for a start - all are tax free, some welcome billionaires and millionaires and >there are many more countries.
I had not realised your affliction was so terrible - must be difficult for you >to use the telephone even.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:49:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, There is a luist of at least 20. Why don't yopu exercise your ecuse for a brain and try to find tghe list. I won't do it for you.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:So you could only find three
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:03:01 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you can't use google or any other source of information. OK I will help >>you
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 01:32:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Fully supported, you are incompetent and I should make allowances for you >>>>but
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:I knew you could not support your assertion that they would leave if a >>>>>wealth tax was imposed. That must be the common-sense in the Subject >>>>>. . .
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:31:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:I strongly believe they would leave, and they would be welcomed many >>>>>>>>places.
Common sense, that most uncommon talent. >>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360722303/damien-grant-negative-effects-taxing-wealth
It is an interesting viewpoint indeed but the article stopped before I >>>>>>>>>could establish the real point Grant was trying to make in respect of >>>>>>>>>capital and those who have some, and wealth taxes.
My take is simple - neither the Greens nor anyone else has >>>>>>>>>demonstrated a capability to collect wealth taxes by making it >>>>>>>>>compulsory for rich pricks to remain in NZ with NZ capital and pay >>>>>>>>>said taxes.
Most of the rich pricks we have now - such as Graeme Hart and the >>>>>>>>>Mowbrays - earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, and if >>>>>>>>>wealth taxes were aimed at them I have no doubt they would leave NZ >>>>>>>>>(in fact I wonder if Hart is currently tax-resident in NZ given his >>>>>>>>>homes outside NZ and yachts).
Those and similar successes have provided employment, their companies >>>>>>>>and
they
paid taxes and have therefore contributed more than the average person >>>>>>>>financially. Hating these people is based on envy.
Where would they go to find a lower overall tax imposition, Tony? >>>>>>Several places - if you wish to research that then you could try google. >>>>>
sod that for a lark! Of course many would leave.
So where to?
to overcome that.
They could choose from the United Arab Emirates, Bahamas, and Cayman Islands >>for a start - all are tax free, some welcome billionaires and millionaires >>and
there are many more countries.
, and even then you do not know if theAbsolutely off topic, what a stupid irrelevance.
people you mention would be welcomed there. On the other hand there is >another bolt-hole that has been chosen by at least one millionaire -
albeit a bit wealthier than the ones you mention - Peter Thiel chose
New Zealand!
See: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/indepth/national/how-peter-thiel-got-new-zealand-citizenship/
I had not realised your affliction was so terrible - must be difficult for >>you
to use the telephone even.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 155:52:53 |
| Calls: | 12,092 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,723 |