Just a quick heads up


I do not worry about anthropogenic climate change. A lot of temperature data has been tampered with to fit the narrative.

nope. you do realize there is very little incentive for scientists to publish on climate change? if they took a job in the oil business they'd be doing "very well for themselves". follow the money, look at who stands to lose/gain by lying.

in a science profession, years of lying will come back to bite you (people won't publish your work anymore). in industry, if you've lied, and bought yourself a few more years of blowing poisonous smoke into the air, your wallet's only gotten thicker.
 
Another thing to have in mind, though you British fellows should contact a consultant about this to be sure, but this:

What happens if goods are sent before the end of the transition period and their dispatch or shipment are completed after it?

Once the transition period is over, EU rules will continue to be applied to cross-border transactions that began before the transition period with respect to the application of the Union Customs Code (UCC) and the VAT and excise duties rights and obligations for taxable persons.

So anything 'imported' during the transition period (between 1 feb. 2020 and 31 dec. 2020 as UK has already left the EU) would be subject to customs clearance I guess.

And yep, in EU, VAT is applied where the commercial invoice is issued which means VAT rate of the country of the seller (unless any of the exceptions takes place, which is not the case)
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, as a private person within the EU the company you are buying from will just charge the VAT of their own EU member country and that's it, so everyone from the EU has to pay the same price plus shipping. The complicated details of the tax laws only affect the companies themselves.

AFAIK the normalization was just about setting some general rules like a minimum common and reduced VAT rate (15%/5%) - ironically nobody even thought about setting a maximum.
I remember considering importing something from Norway before standardisation of rates. As I recall, it would have ended up stuck at the post office before I paid up the extra VAT, so I never got round to buying one.
 
nope. you do realize there is very little incentive for scientists to publish on climate change? if they took a job in the oil business they'd be doing "very well for themselves". follow the money, look at who stands to lose/gain by lying.

in a science profession, years of lying will come back to bite you (people won't publish your work anymore). in industry, if you've lied, and bought yourself a few more years of blowing poisonous smoke into the air, your wallet's only gotten thicker.

Both contain charts from nasa.gov, but the older one has a much higher temperature for the 1930's. In fact if you research it then you'll probably find that they lowered the temperature multiple times. Originally the main proponents of climate change begrudgingly admitted that America (where by far most temperature data came from) happened to contradict their theory. But that problem has now been solved by changing the facts.

That's how political science generally works. Politicians are pragmatic people and so are the scientists that they pay. Why change a useful theory to match useless facts? It's much more useful to change the useless facts to match the useful theory. As a result, we get taught a lot of useful facts that are engineered by pragmatic scientists to support useful theories.

As for the motive, that's a moot point because they've been caught red-handed. Either way it's not like there's no possible motive. There's profit being made by selling carbon credits and It also gives the government some extra control because now they have one more imaginary danger for their measures to "protect" us against. The more imaginary dangers exist the easier it becomes for the government to find a semi-plausible excuse for their unreasonable demands.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, as a private person within the EU the company you are buying from will just charge the VAT of their own EU member country and that's it, so everyone from the EU has to pay the same price plus shipping. The complicated details of the tax laws only affect the companies themselves.

AFAIK the normalization was just about setting some general rules like a minimum common and reduced VAT rate (15%/5%) - ironically nobody even thought about setting a maximum.
I paid German VAT at the French Amazon.
This way I got my Oculus Quest 2 way cheaper as the Frenchies have a way higher VAT then Germany :)
 
I paid German VAT at the French Amazon.
This way I got my Oculus Quest 2 way cheaper as the Frenchies have a way higher VAT then Germany :)
I refuse to take Amazon as an example of proper tax behaviour. Or any other huge company. Or as an example for almost anything.
I don't buy from Amazon, but I have the impression they make it look (if you don't care to read the fine print) as you buy from some conutry but they bill and ship from the country they see fit,
so many people think they've bought from abroad and they didn't have any problem with customs, but they really are buying from their local subsidiary of Amazon.
I don't know, in any case that wouldn't make sense between 2 EU member states, maybe.
Anyway, I half remember there was some rule that changed things if the shop sold more than so many euros per year to a given EU member state ? I think it was a high threshold.
 
Even if you don't think we're affecting the global temperature, a lot of the same measures are a good idea anyway to help stop pollution in general, which IS a very obvious problem in many places.
What kind of pollution? CO₂? CO₂ is an important substance that's excreted by animals and needed by plants. CO₂ supposedly changing the temperature is the most important reason that it's considered pollution. And the best evidence we have for CO₂ changing the temperature is tampered data.

I don't see why it's worth arguing about the historic data w.r.t climate change. Half the world seems to be on fire, and the rest is underwater.
It's a good example of how political science works. Tampering with data is the norm, not the exception. I could have picked other examples, but someone else brought up climate change so I went with that.
 
I remember considering importing something from Norway before standardisation of rates. As I recall, it would have ended up stuck at the post office before I paid up the extra VAT, so I never got round to buying one.
Sorry to shatter your world view of an united Europe, but Norway is not a member of the EU.

you do realize there is very little incentive for scientists to publish on climate change? if they took a job in the oil business they'd be doing "very well for themselves". follow the money, look at who stands to lose/gain by lying.
However, scientists have very high incentive for publishing things that actually get published in scientific journals, because it is very hard to earn a reputation otherwise. Unfortunately, scientific journals are not interested in publishing papers that are "boring", i.e. papers that fail to generate any "new" knowledge but just confirm and strengthen old theories that may not be compatible with today's narrative. However, these "boring" papers are not meaningless, their sheer number actually influences how credible a new "revolutionary" paper is, but without being published by these journals people just don't notice that they even exist. This is the confirmation bias.

Due to this, academic researchers tend to "tune" their statistical interpretation of the data towards the expected outcome, which became a serious problem within the last few decades, especially concerning medical and health topics. The statistical quality of scientific papers went totally bottom up because scientists were losing interest in boring facts. A friend of mine who is currently finishing his Master's degree in Psychology even told me that there is currently a mayor shift in methodology because the classic statistical methods produce too much false papers.

Therefore I suggest to take everything "revolutionary" proclaimed by scientific papers with a grain of salt, especially if the field of research still has a huge number of unknown variables. Instead, look for obvious mistakes in their statistical methodology first.

Peer review ain't what it used to be, either. There actually have been several published scientific papers that were utterly bullshit, because the authors intentionally made them up to demonstrate how toothless today's peer reviews are. There have been some troubling reports of FUD campaigns against perfectly neutral scientific papers in the US that didn't match the public narrative as well, leading to unheard of procedures like retroactively unpublishing papers and whole "revenge crusades" to get the responsible persons fired.
 
Last edited:
What kind of pollution? CO₂? CO₂ is an important substance that's excreted by animals and needed by plants. CO₂ supposedly changing the temperature is the most important reason that it's considered pollution. And the best evidence we have for CO₂ changing the temperature is tampered data.


It's a good example of how political science works. Tampering with data is the norm, not the exception. I could have picked other examples, but someone else brought up climate change so I went with that.
Why did you automatically assume I meant CO2? I'm talking about the stuff that's making it hard to breathe in Beijing and such. All pollution.
 
What kind of pollution? CO₂? CO₂ is an important substance that's excreted by animals and needed by plants. CO₂ supposedly changing the temperature is the most important reason that it's considered pollution. And the best evidence we have for CO₂ changing the temperature is tampered data.

your gas-powered car (and any non-renewable energy) doesn't just emit CO2 -- particulate matter is a major cause of early death. not to mention, sit in a closed garage with an ICE-powered car running for long enough, and you'll die.


can we keep climate-change related topics in the world news & politics thread? it's annoying to have to argue about this outside of that thread.
 
can we keep climate-change related topics in the world news & politics thread? it's annoying to have to argue about this outside of that thread.
It's been locked since a couple of days after the US elections. We actually still have two US Senate races to go though, so we probably can't unlock it yet.
 
It's not that surprising to see Linux users display skepticism about anything and everything though. They're already the types to use an OS that 1% of the world uses, broken up into different flavors that are sometimes used by less than 1% of that 1%. Wish I knew what it was like to go against the grain that hard. Pyra is still on track to be my first Linux device.
 
It's not that surprising to see Linux users display skepticism about anything and everything though. They're already the types to use an OS that 1% of the world uses, broken up into different flavors that are sometimes used by less than 1% of that 1%. Wish I knew what it was like to go against the grain that hard. Pyra is still on track to be my first Linux device.
Eh, I use Linux because it simply works better than Windows. If it was illegal to sell PCs bundled with an OS, and people had to actually choose one, more people would use things other than Windows. Of course you'd also get people who just ask for Windows. But since Linux is free, and Windows is over $100, I bet more people than you'd think would go for the free option. There's also things like ArcaOS that cost money but are cheaper than Windows.
 
your gas-powered car (and any non-renewable energy) doesn't just emit CO2 -- particulate matter is a major cause of early death. not to mention, sit in a closed garage with an ICE-powered car running for long enough, and you'll die.
That always used to be because of the carbon monoxide emitted. Breathe that in and it binds irreversably with the haemoglobin in your red blood cells and bind them up so they can't carry any oxygen; it's a real nasty way to go. I have a vague recollection that catalytic converters have affected that so I'm not sure what gets you next, but it might take a while.
 
But the Prices from 2015 might be not that actual anymore..
I mean since then, whe went to the new case factory, which dit summ up the cost,
So i think it might be around 750 € Circa ..
 
did i miss it or has no one yet mention the pervasive and very convenient fallacy that to disprove global warming is to disprove a pollution crisis and therefor the need to change our behaviour in any way?

it's less about _politicized_ science, more about the corporate lobby against regulation as well as more discrete forms of corruption.

so it's capitalism at fault. let's get rid of it. it's not so useful anymore anyway.

capitalizm created a lot of things, but not linux. linux was borne of curiosity with a healthy dose of boredom.

i used to be curious now i'm just bored. maybe i'll write some software... oh wait i don't have my pyra.
 
Back
Top