quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
I'd gladly make that into a bet if you're interested, you can set the parameters of the bet if you want, whether it be 5 years or 15 years, I won't be going anywhere and I'm 100% confident of what will happen in the next two decades, so why not put your money where your mouth is :)

Do you have any women?

quote:

...The academic reputation of the field of Sun-climate relations is poor because many
studies do not address all, or even some of, the limitations listed above. It is also a field that f
in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as
climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on
anthropogenic warming. In particular, figures and statistics with known errors, limitations
and inaccuracies are repeatedly reproduced on the Internet and in the media (as discussed,
for example, by Damon and Laut 2004), and publications are reported in a massively
selective manner. None of this makes any difference to the scientific reality, or otherwise,
of mechanisms connecting solar variability and Earth’s climate; however, it does make
evaluation of the evidence much more difficult. Recent reviews have been presented by
Reid (2000), Rind (2002), Haigh (2003, 2007), Beer (2006), Foukal et al. (2006), de Jager
(2008), Gray et al. (2010) and Lockwood (2004, 2010, 2012).
3 Solar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Actually - Yeah, really really.
As in, those special tax breaks are subsidies. They really are!
Sure, a tax break that is available to anyone isn't, that's why I made it clear that I was talking about any relief that is granted to one part of a sector over another.
If Oil company lobbyist is able to obtain a special "Oil research re-investment" tax break, what he's doing is getting his industry a subsidy.

Again, if they're still a net payer of taxes, it's not a subsidy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Again, you've fallen for a very very simplistic trick.
If two firms, let's call them CoalCo and SolarCo, without any of those "special breaks" have to pay $100 in tax, and then CoalCo - because of its lobbying power - is able to obtain a special tax break of $30 so that it now only pays $70 dollars then what has happened is that CoalCo has received a subsidy of $30 dollars. Even though CoalCo is still a net payer of taxes, it has benefited to the tune of $30 dollars. The "special tax break" is a little gift that the government has given the company. It is no different than a scheme in which there is no tax break, and both firms pay their $100 in tax, but coalCo gets a check for $30 from the government. The government is giving coalCo money. The government is subsidising coalCo.
That's a subsidy paid for by all of the other tax payers... people like you and me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Again, you've fallen for a very very simplistic trick.
If two firms, let's call them CoalCo and SolarCo, without any of those "special breaks" have to pay $100 in tax, and then CoalCo - because of its lobbying power - is able to obtain a special tax break of $30 so that it now only pays $70 dollars then what has happened is that CoalCo has received a subsidy of $30 dollars. Even though CoalCo is still a net payer of taxes, it has benefited to the tune of $30 dollars. The "special tax break" is a little gift that the government has given the company. It is no different than a scheme in which there is no tax break, and both firms pay their $100 in tax, but coalCo gets a check for $30 from the government. The government is giving coalCo money. The government is subsidising coalCo.
That's a subsidy paid for by all of the other tax payers... people like you and me.

You've fallen for a common Democrat stratagem. You make it look like it's the government's money in the first place. It's not. It belongs to the business. Reducing the amount of taxes government takes from a company isn't a subsidy, it's a case where the company gets to keep more of it's own money.

I've stated it many times, but will do so again: I'm all for ending all tax loopholes (not this one, or that one, but not these), except maintaining tax exempt status for charitable organizations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I like seeing thursdays posts:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


This is the longest span of time in which no major hurricane has struck the mainland U.S. in NOAA hurricane records going back to 1851.

[img]http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq81/eagle007blogger/looney%20left/AlGore.jpg[/img]

(Everybody keep panicking though...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Sanity don't you find it ironic? It seems to me the vast majority of atmospheric scientist agree that there is global warming...and that man has a big hand in it. There is hard data galore to support this and still many conservatives don't even admit there is a slight chance they could be correct. Yet when an opposing view with much less evidence is postulated it is taken as concrete proof that all other data is wrong.

To me this just shows they have no credibility and their thinking is based in political ideology or in sticking their wet finger to the wind or checking the Bible and Farmers Almanac for the weather forecast.

I am not saying there is no validity to this theory only that alternative theories are more compelling until more research is done... so I am keeping an open mind both ways.

It would behoove us to realize the seriousness of global warming... or a mini ice age and be open to the prospect that to save our way of living we may have to address these issues with hard earned tax money.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

But the data has not been wrong... the data of the past is real and compelling... The postulation of the future is in doubt but don't you think we should use the best information we have just in case? If we do then should we not take the facts seriously... not just an anomaly of a year without hurricanes?

Why, other than politics, would we not pay attention to what is happening to our environment now? At least make contingency plans using the best data available.

Butch

quote:

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.

Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.

To celebrate more than two decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation presents this list of some of the “greatest” predictions made by scientists, activists and politicians — most of which we’ve now passed...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/#ixzz3fyuZBk2t