Personal Financial Statement - Delaware Department Of: Fill & Download for Free

I’m not surprised that no one mentions him — Otto Frederick Warmbier.The 21-year-old from University of Virginia allegedly committed a “severe crime” — he attempted to steal a propaganda poster from a restricted staff-only area of the Yanggakdo Hotel to take back to the U.S.On January 2, 2016, while awaiting departure at Pyongyang International Airport, two military guards arrested him and charged him with subversion. He was accused of stealing a propaganda poster from Yanggakdo International Hotel. Consequently, he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.Not many people feel bad for him. In fact, several supposedly respected figures openly stated that he deserved what he got. After all, he went to North Korea voluntarily, knowing its antagonism with the US and its cruel dictatorship. What else could he expect?Katherine Dettwyler, an anthropologist and adjunct professor at University of Delaware, posted on Facebook that Otto Warmbier was a “clueless white male” who “got exactly what he deserved.”[1]Larry Wilmore repeatedly ridiculed Otto Warmbier in an episode of The Nightly Show, a nationally broadcasted late-night talk show.“A story coming straight out of Pyongyang. Not to be confused with ‘Straight Outta Pyongyang’ the hit film about the rise and fall of NKWA (North Koreans with Attitude). Tonight’s story is about the North Korean government, which recently captured one of America’s most annoying exports, a frat bro.”“Otto Frederick Warm Beer? Did this kid get arrested in North Korea and then just give the cop his fake I.D.? ‘Yes, sir, we've got American student Otto Warm Beer here. His birthday is 4-20, and he lives on 69 Weed Avenue.’”“Okay. Listen up, frat boy, this isn’t like the time you stole Sig Ep’s goat. This is North Korea. They’re not known for their love of pranks. Look, I get the desire to steal things from hotel rooms.”[2]While he was playing a footage of a tearful Otto Warmbier begging for forgiveness, Larry Wilmore mocked that Warmbier thought he was entitled to “frat bro privilege.”“It's all the way at the bottom so it's easy to miss, but it says: ‘Frat bro privilege not valid in totalitarian dystopias.’ Listen, Otto Von Crybaby, if you're so anxious to go to a country with an unpredictable megalomaniac in charge, just wait a year and you'll live in one! It's coming, you guys! You know that shit is coming! Make America Great!Huffington Post published an article, “North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal.”The author La Sha, apparently a minority in the US, compared her “oppression” in the US to the torture Otto Warmbier would face in North Korea. She compared Otto Warmbier visiting North Korea with those mass shooters in Aurora, CO and Charleston, NC. She ruthlessly mocked him for his cis white male privilege.[3]I feel bad for Otto Warmbier because his fellow American citizens show no sympathy to someone who has suffered unexpected misfortune.As Otto Warmbier was begging for help in sheer terror and weeping openly for someone to help him, his fellow American citizens mocked him, laughed at his misfortune, and made fun of his “white American” and “frat bro” identity.All I can say is — ARE YOU F**KING SERIOUS?His fellow citizens still stand by their sick grounds and defend for their accusative comments.“He chose to go to North Korea. If he hadn’t gone there, this would not have happened!”Before I graduated from law school, I took a spontaneous trip to Easter Island, without knowing a word of Spanish. A guy in my year flew all the way to Kenya to climb Mount Kilimanjaro, with limited experience in outdoor sports. Another person purchased an expensive cruise to celebrate her graduation in Antarctica, at the cost of 3/4 of her savings. I also know someone who took a whole month walking across the Camino de Santiago even though she was hardly outside her room in the past three years. And of course, a few people went to North Korea and took pictures with the Kim statutes. Twenty people in my year, including me, went on a trip to Israel, took walks along the West Bank and swam in the Dead Sea.These are just a few examples. We know too well that for indefinite years to come, we will have to bury ourselves in legal memos or spreadsheet, dedicate ourselves to clients or supervisors, live in our offices and drink multiple shots of Expresso to survive. This would be our last opportunity to try something exciting before we are tired out by everyday mundane events.Before a big, important and long-term commitment, everyone has done, or at least thought of doing, something out of ordinary, something crazy, something memorable, something that we could tell others and hear their “wow”.Has it come across our minds that we might lose our lives by doing such crazy things? While I admit that most of the times I’m sort of a daredevil, what we do is not nearly as dangerous as it sounds. For example, even though Mount Kilimanjaro sounds intimidating to amateurs, only 3 — 10 people died out of 30,000 visitors.Likewise, to many people, North Korea does not sound like a good place for vacation. Every year, 4,000 — 6,000 tourists from Western countries visited North Korea, but in the past 20 years, fewer than 20 U.S. citizens were detained, and none of them entered North Korea as tourists.[4]Until 2011, not a single tourist had ever been detained for any reason.[5]I’m sure that as a seasoned traveler who has been to Israel, Cuba and Ecuador, Otto Warmbier had done his share of due diligence. Personally, I don’t think Otto Warmbier himself expected himself to be convicted and sentenced when he first entered North Korea. He might have some idea about severe consequences of certain act, so he may have tried his best to behave himself, but being detained and sentenced to hard labor for touching a poster is not one of them. Before this happened to him, we couldn’t really find incidents where tourists got detained for whatever happened in a hotel.If what happened to him is not within reasonable expectation, why should we think that Otto Warmbier deserves what he got?It might be more justifiable to say “he deserves it” if someone goes to climb Mount Everest untrained and bare-handed and dies along the way.I feel bad for Otto Warmbier because after he confessed to attempting to steal a poster, people simply assumed that he was actually guilty.People blame him for stealing the poster. People blame him for looking for trouble.“But he stole a propaganda poster! That’s foolish! He didn’t respect the rules of a foreign country.”Said by a bunch of people who have grown up in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. They seem to forget — under the US legal standard, Otto Warmbier was, without the slightest doubt, wrongfully convicted.Many people feel bad about the wrongfully convicted prisoners as a whole, but I have yet to see anyone pointing out that Otto Warmbier was one of them. People simply assumed that he did it, and that he had not respected the rules of a foreign country. By believing he was guilty, these people had also accepted the legitimacy of a decision made by a Kangaroo Court.I personally believe he was innocent.Based on the evidence available, there was absolutely no way we could ever hold him as guilty. I am shocked that very few people have suspected that the figure in the video might not be him.He was denied a fair trial. The entire trial lasted hardly over an hour. There was no opening and closing statements, no testimony, no witnesses or depositions. Not only was he wrongfully convicted, he was also sent to the scariest prison in the world — North Korea labor camp.The Court only presented one item as evidence — an extremely low-resolution video purported to be taken from the hotel’s security camera footage. In this very brief video captured at 1:57 a.m., an unidentifiable individual removed a poster from the wall and placed it on the floor. No footage concerning the subsequent events was displayed.This is how blurred the video was:First, how come most people didn’t notice that this individual in the footage does not look like Otto Warmbier at all?The guy in the footage was way too short. Actually, the video was so blurred that I’m not even confident that the individual is a he.In the second picture, you can clearly see that even if he stands up straight, there is plenty of room between the top of his head and the ceiling.I don’t know how tall Otto Warmbier was, but definitely above average among white American 21-year-olds. From the picture below, he seemed at least 6 feet.Meanwhile, the off-limit 5th floor is well-known for its very low ceiling. In 2011, a group of tourists ventured to the 5th off-limit area and took plenty of pictures to show how low the ceiling was.The guy in the picture was Asian. While this generalization does not apply to everyone, it is undeniable that Asian males are shorter than white males on average.[6] We can see that the Asian guy had to duck his head to avoid hitting the ceiling. The woman, standing in front of him, was also about to hit the ceiling. Again, I don’t know how tall these two people are, but at least from the picture, Otto Warmbier seems taller than both of them.The tourists who explored the 5th floor in 2011 wrote, “[the ceiling] was around half that of the other floors. Some ducked or tilted their heads to the sides.”[7]Second, are any of the propaganda posters even removable?From the pictures and a couple of videos uploaded by tourists over the years, we can see that the posters are gigantic. You don’t have to think twice about whether they are small enough to be put in a suitcase. Surely, Otto Warmbier didn’t notice this fact until he took down the whole poster? Further, I’m not sure anyone could carry such a propaganda by himself, no matter how strong he is. Even if a thief has successfully stolen a propaganda poster, it’s very unlikely to be unnoticed by the customs or any North Korean folks passing by. Was Otto Warmbier so stupid? I highly doubt.The group of tourists in 2011 said, “While we were there there were no posters that you could take down. The pictures were either all painted or nailed to the wall. Not that we ever had considered taking, let alone touching anything on the floor - there was nothing that we could have stolen from there anyway. Except for maybe the pair of slippers on the floor outside the surveillance room."One of those tourists even shot a video depicting all the propaganda posters on the wall.The posters could only possibly be taken down if they were made of paper, but we couldn’t see any of them made with paper. All of them seemed to be made of concrete and paint.Third, has anyone ever got into trouble by venturing to the 5th floor?If there is one thing that I think Otto Warmbie might have done, it is that he explored, or at least thought about exploring the 5th off-limit area.The mysterious “5th floor” has fascinated many tourists for years. Every group of tourists would ask their guide questions about the 5th floor. In fact, before Otto Warmbier got into trouble, the 5th floor was almost “a rite of passage” for visitors to North Korea.In 2011, while wandering around the off-limit area, Calvin Sun and his fellow tourists had been warned three times by different hotel staff members. Nothing happened. The staff members did not even escort them back to their own room. A couple among the tourists even kissed on the 5th floor, and still they were not blamed at all.Also in 2011, a British woman, along with other tourists in the group, was encouraged by the tour guide to visit the off-limit floor. The guide told them that they had to be very quiet. The woman described the excursion as “clandestine” and “a little scary”, but otherwise nothing special.[8]A few weeks before Otto Warmbier embarked on his fateful journey, a guy from Glasgow sneaked to the 5th floor on his own, but only ended up getting stuck inside the propaganda room in the middle of the night. The elevator was broken.[9]Many years later, Calvin Sun spoke of the excursion, “we weren’t the first group to go to the 5th floor - or the last….. the weight of what we were doing didn’t occur to us.”Just like Calvin Sun and his fellow tourists, Otto Warmbier might have been curious as well, and the weight of sneaking to the off-limit area didn’t occur to him. There was no reason to, since Sun said there wasn’t warnings either online or offline warning tourists that the 5th floor was “strictly off-limits.”As to why it happened to Otto Warmbier, I believe he was just unlucky, and the laws in North Korea was arbitrary. He was hit by the arbitrary law, when he visited during a sensitive period where the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea tensed up. Even so, it might have never occurred to him that he would be used as a pawn for the politicians.Fourth, the footage seems to be taken out of the context intentionally.In most other videos, the 5th floor was dark. A reporter who had explored the floor said it was all dark even during the day. It didn’t really make sense that a country in short supply of electricity would keep an empty area well-lit.In addition, the footage was very short. What the surveillance camera had captured following this individual’s act was never publicized. The video footage we could see has been cut abruptly, as if intentionally showing an act to the audience.Fifth, what is shown in the footage contradicts what North Korean officials told us.There were glaring inconsistencies between what the North Korean government officials claimed and what the video footage showed.While an official told the press that Otto Warmbier stole the propaganda from the hotel’s 2nd floor, we know for a fact that it is the 5th floor that hangs many propaganda posters and is off-limits to tourists.The officials said Otto Warmbier attempted to take the slogan away, but “the slogan was bigger than he had thought …. he turned it upside down and deserted it on the floor.” The video footage didn’t show his intent to take it away or turn it upside down.I feel bad for Otto Warmbier because he is an epitome of victim-blaming, an outlet for people’s hostility towards privileged white males.As I mentioned above, Otto Warmbier had his legitimate reasons to seek adventure. But furthermore, there is another more important reason why he received so much hostility — he was born in a Republican, well-off family; he was white, male, Prom King, student at University of Virginia and a member of a fraternity. Based on these facts, people immediately put together an image in which he was an entitled, spoiled, naive and clueless college student.It is difficult for me to reconcile the group of people who advocate for equality and these people who made unsubstantiated assumption of Otto Warmbier.Katheryn Dettwyler’s Facebook post cost her entire academic career. She was fired immediately by University of Delaware.I don’t know what she is doing now, but here is what I think of her:Is it wrong of me to think that Dettwyler got exactly what she deserved? She was, ironically, an anthropologist, for f**k’s sake, and then posted racist, sexist, insensitive and selfish stuff on Facebook, which is visible to literally everyone. I see her getting fired by the university and think, “What did you expect?” How about a few moments of thoughts given to all the students of anthropology who were taught by such a hypocrite? Just because we are young students and don’t have the same power as you do, we shouldn’t deserve a better education?Larry Wilmore, good thing your show is defunct now. They were full of sick jokes.La Sha, while I acknowledge the oppression you feel in the everyday life in the US, you should reflect upon yourself — is it only because of your gender and skin color?Most of all, I feel bad for Otto Warmbier because after he had made the confession at the press conference, he was still sentenced to 15 years hard labor. As if he had not suffered enough, he and his family had to bear the blame and ridicule by his fellow citizens.If you still remember the press conference he had “requested” to hold, he started reading from a prepared, fanciful and heavily-scripted statement in level tones.Over the years, I’ve come across multiple articles stating that it was “unclear if Otto Warmbier was forced to attend the news conference and apologize” or “unclear if Warmbier made the confession under coercion.”However, the answer was painfully obvious from the very beginning.First, I would like to thank everyone for coming to the press conference that I eagerly request to have. I would also like to show my sincere gratitude for the government of the D.P.R Korea for giving me this opportunity to apologize for my crime, to beg for forgiveness, and to beg for any assistance to save my life.The chance that North Korea government would grant the request from a US prisoner — who had committed a severe crime against the people and the government — is less than zero.On September 23, 2015, I was having dinner at my friend Stephen's home and with his mother Sharon, a member of Friendship Methodist Church. Sharon emphasized that her church does not support North Korea and the communism should be ended. She asked me to take an important political slogan to be hung in her church as a trophy. She continued to say that if I take this slogan, we could weaken the community and motivation of the North Korean people, to show this country an insult from the West.She knew how desperately I needed a car to drive to my job, so she offered me a used car with $10,000 if I were successful. And, she said if I got detained and not return, her church would pay my family $200,000 in a way of charitable donation. This is the amount I am expected to pay for my brother's and sister's university tuition. $400,000 in total. Then she showed me the Friendship United Methodist Church's official bank account statement, with $42 million.At first, due to fear, I was hesitant. But since my family suffered from severe financial difficulties, I started to consider this as my only golden opportunity to earn money.Otto gave a detailed description of his absurd motive behind this premeditated “criminal act.”He stated that the criminal act all started from September 2015, but some reported that he came up with the idea only after he got accepted into the Hong Kong exchange program, and North Korea was close to China. Did he already know that he was accepted by September 2015?I have never heard that in a country with five-figure college tuition each year, the eldest brother was expected to pay for the college tuition of all his younger siblings. Can anyone realistically expect a 21-year-old full-time student to earn $400,000? Meanwhile, this is very likely true in North Korea, or even South Korea, where college tuition is much more affordable, and there is such thing as “no federal student loan” available.Plus, even the most creative and imaginative college student living in the 21st century outside North Korea would not come up with the theory that “taking a poster down” could plausibly be effectively weakening the government of a country. Such belief could not ever occurred to anyone living in 2015.Lastly, Otto Warmbier was Jewish. Since when would a Jewish person get affiliated with a Methodist church?The United States Administration used me, like many before me. I am a victim of the United States Administration’s consistent hostile policies against the D.P.R. Korea. I wish the United States citizens, who might follow my precedent, would never, ever allow yourself to be allured by the United States Administration.Through the tour to this country, I have come to see the reality of D.P.R. Korea. It’s very different from the state of evils that the West had. And I have come to see the current human rights issues in the D.P.R. Korea consistently highlighted by the United States administration. It’s nothing more than an excuse to harm and eventually overthrow the government of the D.P.R. Korea.My dear United States citizens, seeing is believing. Please come to Pyongyang, which once the United States long ago called “the Eastern Jerusalem”, then you will believe me.Otto Warmbier heavily accused the U.S. Administration for its “consistent hostile policies” against North Korea, for using “human rights” as an excuse to harm and overthrow the North Korean government.Even though I don’t consider myself very patriotic, I can’t imagine myself being able to accuse my own country in such harsh, humiliating words in a televised, broadcasted press conference, for no wrongdoing whatsoever.It must be very hard for him to read this as well.As an American citizen detained for severe crimes in the D.P.R. Korea, I had feared that I may receive torture or mental pressure. That was my totally wrong thinking.I’ve been given the most humanitarian treatment in a hotel-class guesthouse with no torture or mental pressure. I’m fed three meals daily of high quality and I was given a full medical checkup. I’m given one hour daily to walk outside and I’m given a weekly sauna bath. I was also given a haircut. I sleep more than 8 hours daily. As you can see, I am healthy, but I miss my family very much.I have been very impressed by the Korean government's humanitarian treatment of severe criminals like myself, and of the very fair and square legal procedures in the D.P.R. Korea. I am most ashamed in my life for committing a crime in such a friendly country. At least through this press conference, my family will see that I’m in good health and find some relief. However, I miss my family so, so much. I understand the severity of my crime, and I have no idea what sort of penalty I may face. But I’m begging to the Korean people and the government for my forgiveness, and I am praying to the heavens so that I may be returned home to my family.I almost laughed aloud at the irony of this part.Sure, “the most humanitarian treatment in a hotel-class guesthouse with no torture or mental pressure” could easily turn a healthy young man to a state of vegetation. Who would believe that?If any part of his confession was real and of his own volition, it was his tears and his love for his family. In contrast to his monotonous tone and mechanically flipping through his notes, he suddenly became visibly emotional:Once again, I want to beg for forgiveness. Please, act to save me, save my life, and save my family. I am the oldest son of the family. My mother needs me. My father needs me. My younger brother and younger sister need me. I have made the single worst decision of my life. But I’m only human. I beg you to consider that, and I beg that you would find in your heart to give me forgiveness and to allow me to return home to my family. I also beg the journalists to accurately and objectively report my story and provide help of any kind. Thank you all for giving me this opportunity.After this press conference, my family will come to know my current situation. I am very worried that they may be harmed and got manipulated by the United States Administration. I’m worried that they may be threatened and harmed from the government. I beg for any kind of public protection for my family.One final time, people and government of the D.P.R. Korea, I beg for forgiveness. I never, never should have allowed myself to be allured by the United States administration to commit a crime in this country. I wish that the United States administration never manipulate people like myself in the future to commit crimes against foreign countries.I entirely beg you and the government of D.P.R. Korea for your forgiveness. Please I've made the worst mistake of my life, but please act to save me. Please. Think of my family.The monotonous tone, the way he flipped through page after page of his notes, and some of the awkward English phrases thrust unnaturally in the sentences. Were it not for the background, I could have mistaken such a script as a badly-written fiction.The press conference was the first time that the world got a glimpse of Otto Warmbier since his arrest.I don’t know how he managed to remain so composed as he read his confession from the notes. Maybe he had already become numb to everything after six weeks of who-knows-what treatment. Maybe someone promised him that he would be released as long as he read this statement in the press conference.Whatever happened during the six weeks silence and the weeks following the press conference would remain a mystery. We can only imagine what this poor guy had been going through in order to give such a confession to a large group of emotionless journalists and photographers.In spite of the powerful confession and apology he delivered, and the deep bows to the North Korean people as he begged them for leniency, North Korea’s Supreme Court showed no mercy. On March 16, 2016, Otto Warmbier was tried and convicted of “subversion” under Art. 60 of North Korea’s Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.Being escorted out of the North Korea’s Supreme Court by two military guards was the last time we could see him alive and fully mobile. Then, he disappeared into the dictatorship’s prison system.I feel bad for him for the manner he died, and for whatever that caused his coma.We all know how he ended up.After 17 months of total silence, North Korean government suddenly decided that they would send Otto Warmbier back home out of “humanitarian” concern. The officials told the U.S. Department of State that Otto Warmbier was in a coma shortly after his trial, when he contracted food-borne botulism and took a sleeping pill.He was sent back in an air ambulance. Fred and Cindy Warmbier, his parents, was confronted with a “guttural inhuman howling” coming from the cabin cluttered with medical equipment. Their son was strapped to a stretcher, jerking violently against his restraints and wailing. His eyes were open and blank. His nostrils were infiltrated by a feeding tube.He was immediately rushed to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. There, his medical team determined that he was in a state of unresponsive wakefulness, also known as a “persistent vegetative state.” The only positive sign was “spontaneous eye-opening and blinking.”Records and scans indicated that Otto Warmbier had been in a vegetative state since April 2016, soon after his trial and sentence. The physicians also found extensive loss of brain tissue in all regions of the brain, which is usually caused by deprivation of oxygen and blood for a long time.Knowing that Otto would never be cognizant again, his parents requested the feeding tube removed. A week later, Otto passed away.However, the physicians found no signs that he suffered from the effects of botulism — a finding that appears to contradict the explanation the North Korean officials. Given the length of time since he fell in a coma, it was difficult to tell the exact cause.Although some speculate that he attempted to take his own life after the trial, I highly doubt it. If that is the real reason for his coma, why would North Korean officials lie to the U.S. Department of State?Whatever the exact cause is, North Korean government is 100% responsible for it.The only comforting part of the story is Otto Warmbier’s father, Fred.Two days after Otto Warmbier landed, Fred Warmbier gave a speech at Wyoming High School, where his son graduated as a salutatorian. He was wearing the same blazer his son had worn during his confession. He spoke highly of his son’s “adventurous side,” the same trait that led his son to take a trip to North Korea in the first place.“We’re thrilled that our son is on American soil. Otto was a young university student who was on a tour with other university students. He’s never been in trouble with his life. He fought to stay alive through the worst the North Koreans put him through to return to the family and community he loves.”“I’m proud of Otto, and the courage he showed by going to North Korea and having that adventurous side to him. And so, the fact that he was taken and treated this way is horrible, and it’s tough to process. But we’re tremendously proud of him!”Footnotes[1] Katherine Ann Dettwyler - Wikipedia[2] "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore" Frat Boy in North Korea & Football Hazards (TV Episode 2016) - IMDb[3] North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal[4] List of foreign nationals detained in North Korea - Wikipedia[5] Creepy North Korea: The Hidden 5th Floor - The Monsoon Diaries[6] Average human height by country - Wikipedia[7] Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’[8] Lawyer was taken to 'secret' floor of North Korea hotel[9] 5 Things I Learned Trapped in a Secret Propaganda Room in North Korea

No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory.The work of the UN IPCC admitted openly is less focused on the environment and real climate science , rather it is more a project in economics and wealth distribution with the fear of global warming the cat’s paw to gain supporters.The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability. This is critical to seen that the radical view of human caused warming is not settled science. The full story well documented in Bernie Lewin’s recent book.Why this history of the IPCC machinations is so important. E. Calvin BeisnerCompelling historyReviewed in the United States on January 18, 2020Anyone who thinks the science behind global warming alarmism it's simple, objective, empirically sound science in action needs to read this book. The political and financial forces driving toward alarmist conclusions about climate change have been powerful for generations, and that have resulted in scientific claims that go far beyond the evidence. Those in turn have led to government policies that go far beyond not only the science but also the economics, and threaten to undermine the prospects uplifting the world's remaining poor out of their poverty and suffering.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.Environment blogClimate changeFriday, December 19, 201497 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.Popular Technology.netThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand upConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrongRichard Tol: 'There is disagreement on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate.' Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP Photograph: Frank Augstein/APRichard TolFri 6 Jun 2014 15.59 BST971The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard TolDana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.Nuccitelli’s pieces are two of a series of articles published in the Guardian impugning my character and my work. Nuccitelli falsely accuses me of journal shopping, a despicable practice.The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of SussexCO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindleSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ MythPosted: June 10, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry |It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game | CFACT“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictionsthat provide something very useful.”– Dr David Frame,Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.Via Clear Energy Alliance :97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton) | ClimatismNew lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.Articles“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEDECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLONFor those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELSDr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWNSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCESIndur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]SPEAKING OUTA system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.Lennart BengtssonAny person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Michael CrichtonAnother name I have yet to add to the list:Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here."The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

Decide on the structureThe structure of your business entity determines the requirements you need to meet for out-of-state incorporation. The following are the most common business entity types in the United States.C CorporationThis type of corporation is treated as an independent legal entity and tax structure from the owner.Being a C Corporation helps separate your personal assets from your business debts, as you can’t be held personally liable for debts incurred by the corporation.In a C Corporation, there is no limit to the number of shareholders. The shareholders then elect a board of directors, and these directors then designate the CEO to be in charge of managing business operations. You must also hold annual meetings and record meeting minutes.When it comes to taxation, a CCorporation is taxed separately from the owner on corporate profits. Owners would then pay another tax on shareholder dividends distributed out from the corporation. This is normally called a "double taxation" on corporate profits.S CorporationAn S Corporation is any private corporation eligible to operate under Subchapter S of the IRS Code. It incorporates, like any other corporation, by filing Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State, then choosing directors and officers who oversee the management of the company. A special filing will then be made with the IRS to designate the corporation to be treated as a S Corp.Similarly to a C Corporation, an S Corporation is treated as an independent legal entity and tax structure, separate from its owners. This helps secure your personal financial assets, as they can’t be seized to satisfy business liabilities.However, unlike in a C Corporation, S Corporation owners report their share of profit and loss in the company on their personal tax returns. There is no taxation at the corporate level; profits and losses are passed through to the individual shareholders to be reported on their tax returns.Another difference is that there are limits on the number of shareholders and they must be US citizens or residents.Additionally, an S Corporation must hold annual meetings and record meeting minutes.Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a hybrid business structure that combines the characteristics of a corporation, a sole proprietorship, and a general partnership.An LLC offers the tax advantages of non-corporate structures with the limited liability protection of a corporation.Like C and S Corporations, an LLC is treated as an independent legal structure separate from its owners. As an owner, you are shielded from being held personally responsible for LLC debt.In terms of taxation, if the LLC has only one owner, it is taxed similarly to a sole proprietorship. If there are multiple owners, the LLC will be taxed as a partnership. One can also have the option to be taxed as an S Corporation or C Corporation.In an LLC, there is no limit to the number of owners, you are not required to hold annual meetings or record minutes, and the business is governed by operating agreements. If you are forming a LLC you can follow the 5 Steps to Form an LLC.Sole Proprietorship and General PartnershipsSole Proprietorship and General Partnership are very similar types of business structure, the major difference being the number of owners.A Sole Proprietorship means there is only one owner, while a General Partnership has two or more partners.This type of business is easy to form and operate, so much so that, for example, no state filing is required when forming a Sole Proprietorship. However, the biggest drawback is that the owner(s) remains personally liable for lawsuits filed against the business.Regarding taxation, it is the owner(s) who reports business profit and loss on their personal tax return.You can download our resources to decide on the best business entity structure for you.VirtualPostMail Business Structure Advantages and Disadvantages.pdfVirtualPostMail Business Structure Comparison.pdf2. Choose the location to do business inMost often many choose to start a business in Delaware or Nevada. I’ll break this down on the benefits of each state.Forming a Delaware LLCThe biggest benefit of forming a Delaware LLC is for privacy and asset protection.You can submit your necessary documents and forms to the Division of Corporations, with the filing fee payment, which is a one-time fee of $90. If you want to speed up the process, you can pay the expedited fee of $100 for same-day filing or $50 for 24-hour filing on top of the filing fee. To maintain your Delaware LLC the annual franchise tax is $300.The benefits of Delaware LLCs is as follows:PrivacyDelaware LLCs are not required to list members’ names and addresses in their filings. The LLC’s operating agreement is the only document where members’ and managers’ names and addresses need to be specified. Since this document is private, the ownership and management structure isn’t available to public view.Asset ProtectionMany individuals use LLCs to protect their assets from lawsuits. Delaware LLCs provide superior asset protection because it is one of the few states that considers a charging order to be the only means to collect debt from LLCs. By contrast, many other states allow judgment collectors to go after the personal assets of the owners of single-member LLCs.Tax AdvantagesDelaware does not tax companies that operate outside of its borders. This means you do not end up paying Delaware state taxes if you have no physical office or do business directly within the state.No state sales tax needs be collected from customers.No corporate tax on interest or other investment income in a Delaware holding company.No taxes for fixed income or equity investment gains on the state level.No value-added taxes, use tax, or even inventory tax.No inheritance tax.No capital shares or stock transfer taxes.No tax on intangible assets such as trademarks, patents, and naming rights.No personal/business property tax.Although, there are many tax advantages having a Delaware LLC requires you to pay an annual franchise tax.If you need help you can follow our 4 Steps to Setting Up a Delaware LLC.Forming a Nevada LLCForming a Nevada LLC is attractive for many reasons, but the most important of them are because it offers tax benefits and strong privacy and asset protection for businesses.Registering a new LLC in Nevada involves the following payments. To register you must pay $200 for a business license, $150 for a list of officers, and $75 for articles of organization. The total to form a Nevada LLC is $425. To maintain your Nevada LLC note that you must file your business license and list of officers annually. It will be $350 annual filing fees.The benefits of a Nevada LLC are below:Tax BenefitsNevada is one of seven states where LLCs are not charged state income tax. Your LLC is not subject to taxes for the income it makes in the state of Nevada.Additionally, members of Nevada LLCs don’t pay the following taxes:No corporate tax.No personal income tax.No franchise taxAsset ProtectionLLC members in Nevada can expect thorough asset protection in the event of a lawsuit.All employees, members, agents, and directors are protected from being personally liable in a lawsuit. Firms are not required to hand over a list of their business assets, and apart from filing with the IRS, there is no record of the asset being linked to the company. Also, Nevada won’t request corporate income tax information and share it with the IRS.Strong Privacy ProtectionAnother benefit of forming your LLC in Nevada is it is not required that owners or board members of Nevada LLCs be listed in public records when filing with the state, assuring an extra layer of anonymity.If you need help you can follow our 6 Steps to Forming an LLC in Nevada.3. Register the name of your businessThe name that you choose must comply with your state’s LLC laws.Search if your LLC name is available in the state that you’re registering it in and that no duplicates or similar names exist. You can search your LLC name or on the individual state’s Secretary of State website.Reserve your business name (optional).Decide if your business name will be trademarked. If you wish to have a trademark, it’s best to come up with a unique and non-descriptive name for your business. The best recommendation is to speak to a Patent and Trademark lawyer.4. Select a registered agentA registered agent is a third party entity or individual that is responsible for the correspondence, processing, and receiving of government notices, lawsuits, subpoenas, and other official documents on behalf of the LLC. They help with keeping backup copies of legal documents, signing articles to be filed, staying up-to-update on compliances with State requirements.Requirements vary slightly in each state, but generally registered agents must:Have a physical office in the state where your business is registered.Be available at the physical street address during normal business hours to receive legal documents.You can learn more about why a registered agent is needed.5. Get an EINYour EIN is a unique nine-digit number assigned by the IRS to business entities operating in the United States. It is your permanent identification number and can be used immediately for most of your business needs, including:Opening bank accountsApplying for business licensesObtaining business loansHiring employeesBuild business creditFiling tax returnsForming LLCs and CorporationsOnce an EIN is issued by the IRS, it is permanent and does not expire. It stays for the life of the business until ownership or structure changes, or other exceptional circumstances. Obtaining an EIN is easy and free. Here are 4 ways to get your EIN.What is Required for an EIN Form?Whatever method of application you select to get your EIN here’s everything the EIN form will ask for:Legal name of entity (or individual) for whom the EIN is being requested.Trade name of business.Executor, administrator, trustee, “care of” name.Mailing address.Street address (if it is different).County and state where principal business is located.Name of responsible party.SSN, ITIN, or EIN.Type of business entity.Reason for applying.Date business started or acquired.Closing month of accounting year.Highest number of employees expected in the next 12 months.First date wages or annuities were paid.Principal activity of your business.Principal line of merchandise sold, specific construction work done, products produced, or services provided.Whether or not you’ve ever applied for and received an EIN.What is an EIN?EIN vs. FEIN: A Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) is another name for an EIN.EIN vs. SSN: A Social Security Number (SSN) is an individual tax identification number. Where an EIN is a businesses tax identification number.EIN vs. Tax ID: The number assigned by the IRS for tax purposes is the Tax ID and a EIN is a type of Tax ID, specific to businesses.EIN vs. ITIN: Your Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) acts like a Social Security Number for non-U.S. residents and resident aliens. An ITIN is also used for their spouses and dependents who are not able to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN). Overall, it’s for an individual, whereas the EIN is for a business.Now that we've covered those details let's begin walking you through applying for an EIN.6. Open a business bank accountChoose a Bank That Fits Your Business NeedsAll banks are not created equal. There are a vast number of banks options out there, and you’ll need to do some research to see which account is right for your needs.When choosing a bank for your business, take into consideration the following factors:Existing banking relationship - banking relationship is extremely important when doing business. Using more products and services from the same bank will help to reduce some costs and also allows you to get better rates and easier approvals for lines and credits.Costs - Consider the affordability of the costs you might be charged, such as monthly servicing fees, deposit fees, and ATM fees. If you’re a cash-based business, check for cash deposit fees. If you wire funds frequently, check for free included wires or lower wire fees.Convenience - Make sure the location, as well as the number of ATMs and branches, suits your needs.Support for future needs - If you expect to need more than just bank accounts, make sure your bank offers small business loans, lines of credit, and credit cards; a small business credit card allows you to float business expenses and often offers rewards.We recommend you ask the following questions about your business bank account:What documents are required to open an account?What are the minimum monthly balance requirements?What are the monthly fees, if any?How much is needed for the initial deposit?Required Business DocumentationWhen opening a business account, the bank will request certain documents from you.What should I provide to open a bank account for my business?Generally, most banks ask for the following to start a new account:A filed copy of your LLC’s certificate of formation to ensure that your business is legally registered with the state.A copy of your LLC Operating Agreement. This is usually required to ensure that you are authorized to open bank accounts on behalf of the business.Federal tax ID number (EIN).The address where your business office is located. This must be a physical business address in the U.S. and can either be a residential or commercial street address, but cannot be a PO Box. Banks may require you to provide proof of address to ensure that you do occupy or own the space.A mailing address where all your documents, statements, and notices will be sent. This can be any address.A valid ID of the company owners or members.Some of these documents may vary depending on what state you live in (or the state in which you established your business). Federal banking regulations require a real physical address to open and maintain a U.S. business bank account. Mailbox addresses and PO Boxes are not allowed. Banks will close or suspend your account if they request for proof of physical address and you are not able to provide a proper physical address.What Documents Are Required For Applying For a Business Bank Account?You’ll need the following items to open your LLC’s business bank account.Articles of Organization - Every bank/credit union will require the state-approved Articles of Organization (also known as “Certificate of Organization” or “Certificate of Formation”) that will typically tell the bank/credit union the LLC's name and address, the nature of the LLC's business, and LLC’s registered agent. The Articles of Organization must be approved by the state before applying for a bank account, as this is the only way the bank/credit union knows the LLC is legally authorized to do business in your state.Employer Identification Number (EIN) - Make sure you’ve received your EIN from the IRS before heading to the bank. You’ll need to show them a copy of your EIN in order to open your account because an LLC is a legal entity subject to federal taxation, all banks and credit unions require an EIN number in order to open an account.Personal Identifications - You’ll need to bring in two forms of identification. Every bank/credit union will require at least one form of government-issued identification such as a driver’s license or passport. Double check with the bank before heading over.Additional Documents That May Be Required For Your Business Bank AccountOperating Agreement - The LLC Operating Agreement outlines ownership, member responsibilities, and operating procedures in an LLC. It also details who will have authority to manage the LLC and open bank accounts.While it is not required to have a written Operating Agreement in all states, it is strongly recommended that you do have one as some banks require this. The agreement will also benefit you if you have multiple members in the LLC, if you have a manager managing your LLC, or if you want to reduce personal liability.For a list of documents required to open a business bank account you can download it here.Open Your Bank Account and Use It!Now that you have selected the right bank and gathered all the required documentation, head to the bank and open up your bank account! This is likely the easiest step. Expect to take about an hour to open the account.Determine whether you will need an ATM card and whether you need checks. Ordering checks may cost you extra unless your bank account offers it as a free benefit. An ATM debit card will be useful if you need to make purchases online and you didn’t separately apply for a business credit card.Finally, make sure to use your bank account for all your business transactions. This helps to keep all your financials in one single place so you can easily file taxes at the end of the year.How to Open a Business Bank Account for Non-US ResidentsNon-US residents can now open an LLC business bank account online with Mercury.It wasn’t until this year that opening a business bank account for your LLC was extremely difficult for non-residents. You had to travel to the state where you formed your LLC and open a bank account in person.To open an account you will need:Documentation - Required documentation will depend on the state where you form your LLC. The most common forms will be any of the following Articles of Organization, Certificate of Organization, Certificate of Formation. You will also need to send a stamped and approved copy of your LLC approval documents.Identification - Mercury will only accept a passport for non-US residents. Additionally, they will ask for your phone number and other personal contact information.Address - You will need to provide Mercury with your LLC’s business address. This can be an office location. However, not having a permanent US address is the biggest problem you’ll face when setting up a business bank account in the US. Your proof of address cannot be a PO Box. Banks will ask for your proof of address or proof of residency.Employer Identification Number (EIN) - You will need to show proof of your LLC EIN Number. Mercury will only accept two official letters from the IRS. You can submit an EIN Confirmation Letter (CP575) or EIN Verification Letter (147C).OFAC Restricted CountriesBecause of U.S. sanctions, you won’t be able to open a bank account if you reside in some countries. For a list you can check the Sanctions Programs and Country Information issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury.You can see all of Mercury’s fees here: Mercury pricingYou can see frequently asked questions here: Mercury FAQsIf you are a non-US resident/citizen and plan to open your bank account in the U.S. in person, you will need to check with the bank to see if they support international businesses and what types of documents are required to open an account in the U.S. International banks tends to be more friendly to international businesses.