New Global Warming Newsletter-Must READ!!

[Solar]

keeping on with the real thing, most deniers dont even know what a REAL scientist is, they only believe fakes scientists(blogger ultra orthodox bigots) that are paid by oil companies to skew the data, because they only believe crap from certain conservative websites like newsmax(worst one of em all), and trick all of you into thinking that one of the wackjob theories out there about perhaps that were coming out of and ice age going into and ice age, experiencing pole shift, on and on are true, when in reality, its in oil companies interest to keep the idea that the world is warming out of our heads so we dont ever get off of oil and they can keep making money by polluting our earth to death.

[Solar]

Originally Posted by Solar

keeping on with the real thing, most deniers dont even know what a REAL scientist is, they only believe fakes scientists(blogger ultra orthodox bigots) that are paid by oil companies to skew the data, because they only believe crap from certain conservative websites like newsmax(worst one of em all), and trick all of you into thinking that one of the wackjob theories out there about perhaps that were coming out of and ice age going into and ice age, experiencing pole shift, on and on are true, when in reality, its in oil companies interest to keep the idea that the world is warming out of our heads so we dont ever get off of oil and they can keep making money by polluting our earth to death.

im just sayin'

[Solar]

Originally Posted by AlanE

The pink elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that if "climate science" was an actual science, then climate models would have predicted this 20 years ago.

Knowing how individual geophysical processes work in isolation tells us nothing about the feedback systems in place between all the processes which comprise climate.

this is also an absurd assumtion, that in order to be labeled science, that we must have 20 years of correct predictions. well then. can you refer to a site thats not a hack job denial expert wanna be, and possibly a nasa scientist, ect that points to this? definately not. because per usual this is just another wild claim off the top of your head, unfounded in reason, typical of the deniosphere

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by AlanE

The pink elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that if "climate science" was an actual science, then climate models would have predicted this 20 years ago.

Knowing how individual geophysical processes work in isolation tells us nothing about the feedback systems in place between all the processes which comprise climate.

It is complicated. And, when you have a segment of the researchers,
with a vested interest (incoming government grants, scare-books & etc)
who have frozen their theories into place, as facts, ten+ years ago..?..

Any new data or observations is only going to be used by those with no
ax to grind and ignored by the frozen-in-time people..

I guess it's against their religion to look at any new research findings..

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by Solar

keeping on with the real thing, most deniers dont even know what a REAL scientist is, they only believe fakes scientists(blogger ultra orthodox bigots) that are paid by oil companies to skew the data, because they only believe crap from certain conservative websites like newsmax(worst one of em all), and trick all of you into thinking that one of the wackjob theories out there about perhaps that were coming out of and ice age going into and ice age, experiencing pole shift, on and on are true, when in reality, its in oil companies interest to keep the idea that the world is warming out of our heads so we dont ever get off of oil and they can keep making money by polluting our earth to death.

I know some scientists in the Boston area, and I'm very surprised to hear they aren't actually real.

Or, maybe it's only the scientists who tell me to 'Follow the warming money', who are fakes??

[NeilBlanchard]

Don't you think that the oil company profits are a vested interest in climate change denial? I mean, do you really think that scientists need to resort to fake science in order to get a grant? Fake or incorrect science gets flushed out rather quickly and thoroughly -- see cold fusion.

Climate science hardly stands alone -- and you cannot remove it any more than you can remove evolution or atomic theory from the body of scientific knowledge.

Here's a solid indictment of the scientists-are-in-it-for-the-money and other denial conspiracy theories:

Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Xringer

Japan is a bit higher on that chart than China this month.
Those two have historically been the big international buyers.
It looks like China is holding about 1.5 trillion on average, this past year. With Japan just under a trillion.

If either one of them decides they no longer want to take our paper, then we are going to be in real trouble..

Have to resort to robbing the rich..?

Today, I heard that if we took ALL of Bill Gate's holdings, it would pay the interest on the debt for two (2) whole days.

If we took Oprah Winfrey's cash (and sold off her holdings for the cash),
that would pay the interest for what?? 90 minutes of debt accumulation??

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

We have to face facts, right now is not the time to be investing in schemes
that won't help with our current problems..

If you figure is right China has already dropped half a trillion dollars in securities this year and we seem to be doing fine. Other countries and individuals have been willing to pick up the slack.

You're right about it being a spending problem to a large degree. Spending $700 billion/year on defense is a bit excessive. We would trim that to a more reasonable $350 billion per year. Let NATO play world police for a few decades. We are also not shaping medical policy well. Medicare payments would be substantially less if the focus was on care instead of treatment. One $40,000 hospital stay for an older person is the equivalent of paying someone $15/hour to help them three times a week for two hours each visit... For a decade! Doing simple things like making sure someone is taking their medication properly and helping with chores will drastically increase their standard of living and drastically decrease their medical costs. This may even cut costs by ~$100+ billion/year. This would also put downward pressure on medical costs as a whole for the entire country.

That said the way you're framing it is a bit disingenuous. We aren't looking at taking one person's money, in fact we probably aren't looking at individuals at all per say. In 1950 tax revenue from corporations was an extra $600 billion/year compared to today, and people back then weren't exactly sympathizing for the reds. Maybe you think that corporations should get over a half trillion bucks a year in tax breaks, but my grandparents didn't and I don't either.

We could also let the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, which would add another $100 billion/year. At that point we've pretty much erased the budget deficit, and all it took was an approach similar to what our parents/grandparents had in the 50s.

So, in summation...

• Reduce defense spending
• Insure corporations pay now what they paid in the 50s
• Let the tax cuts for the rich expire
• Focus on overall care instead of just medical treatment

Those four things will pretty much eliminate the budget deficit, and Oprah can keep most of her money.

[NeilBlanchard]

We don't have to defend wind turbines or solar or wave systems with our military. The military itself sees the value of renewable energy, and they have said that climate change is the single largest threat to our future security. Why would they say that, I wonder?

[Solar]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

You're right about it being a spending problem to a large degree. Spending $700 billion/year on defense is a bit excessive. We would trim that to a more reasonable $350 billion per year.

woulnd't that would be great if anonymous made a virus that froze everones computers and made this appear on the screen, a boy can only hope

what a waste of money, and these damn republicans are worried about blowing half a billion on solindra the solar company that failed. hey what a good blog topic..

im always thinking here.

[AlanE]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

That said the way you're framing it is a bit disingenuous. We aren't looking at taking one person's money, in fact we probably aren't looking at individuals at all per say.

Who is this "We" that you are referring to? Surely it's not Democrats and liberals. All they've been doing is focusing on individuals.

Maybe you think that corporations should get over a half trillion bucks a year in tax breaks, but my grandparents didn't and I don't either.

When was the last time that you sat next to a corporation on an airliner? When was the last time you saw a corporation driving a Ferrari? When was the last time that you saw a corporation skiing on the slopes of Aspen?

Do you have a pension plan from your work? Do you own any mutual funds? If you do, then you are the problem that you're railing against. Let me illustrate something for you. Let's look at Exxon-Mobil Corporation. The largest individual shareholder is Rex Tillerson with 1,743,864 shares. Now take a look at the institutional and mutual fund shareholders who manage your pension and your individual retirement mutual fund accounts:

VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE) = 200,084,278 shares
STATE STREET CORPORATION = 186,374,861 shares

Corporations DON'T PAY TAXES, people pay taxes. This has long been known by very many people which is why there hasn't been an uproar about corporate taxes coming down and yet the US corporate tax rate is almost the highest in the Western World:



When guys like you, relics of the past, advocate that the corporate tax rate be increased the real world consequences fall on the investor class and the 800 lb gorilla in the investor class are retirement accounts. The ripple effect works like this - higher corporate taxes paid means a.) less stock price growth because stocks are priced at multiples of earnings, and b.) less dividends paid. This ripples outward to pension plans which now have lower earnings per dollar invested. This ripples out to the teacher, welder, janitor, hotel maid, accountant, project supervisor and the thousands of other professions and hundreds of millions of people who are paying into pension plans who will now have to contend with the compounding effect of lower investment growth by either making do with smaller pension payments when they do retire or having to pay more from the current paychecks in pension contributions in order to balance the lower growth their pension manager is delivering due to the government taking a greater share of corporation profit via corporate taxes.

People's pensions are not magically conjured up. They are funded by corporate profits.

We could also let the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, which would add another $100 billion/year.

Oh really? Let's go back to basic economics. Why do people advocate that cigarette taxes be increased? Why is raising such taxes considered an "anti-smoking" tactic? Here's why - when you raise the cost of taxes on an activity you will get less of that activity. Leftists seem to understand this principle when it comes to things like smoking but then they pretend that it doesn't exist when it comes to income taxation, yet the principle remains the same - raise income tax rates and you will get less activity with regards to the earning of income.

Look at what was just reported over in the UK, news that isn't a surprise to anyone except leftists:

The controversial 50p tax band is 'not working' and revenues have fallen since it was introduced, new figures suggest.

They appear to show the wealthy are finding ways to dodge the tax band levied on incomes of more than £150,000.

In January, the tax take from those who do self-assessment tax returns collapsed by more than £500million, compared with the same month in 2011. They fell from £10.86billion to £10.35billion.

Here is what happened in NY State when they raised their tobacco tax rate:

Cigarette sales statewide have tumbled by nearly a third since New York's highest-in-the-nation cig tax of $4.35 took effect on July 1, according to state tax data and sales reports released yesterday by retailers.

Combined with New York City's own cig levy, there's now a $5.85 tax on packs sold in the five boroughs. . . .

New York state sold 28.7 million cigarette tax stamps in July, down from 43.1 million the previous year, said a spokesman for the state Department of Taxation and Finance.

That translates to $125 million in cig-tax revenue last month, barely more than the $119 million haul in July 2009 despite the massive tax hike.

The numbers confirm reports from convenience-store owners that cigarette sales have dropped 25 to 35 percent since the state hit smokers with a $1.60-a-pack increase.

Retailers said sales were off by as much as 45 percent in stores bordering low-tax states like Pennsylvania and Vermont and tax-free Indian reservations in western New York and on Long Island.

In June, the Legislature approved Paterson's plan to raise the state tax on cigarettes 58 percent as part of a breathtaking $290 million levy on tobacco products meant to save the teetering state treasury.

Tax revenues from tobacco sales went from $119 million per month before the tax increase to $125 million per month after the tax increase when the wizard Democrats were expecting tax revenues to hit $290 million per month. Packs of cigarettes sold went from 43.1 million per month before the tax to 28.7 million per month after the tax.

When you increase the tax on an activity you will get less of that activity.

At that point we've pretty much erased the budget deficit, and all it took was an approach similar to what our parents/grandparents had in the 50s.

I don't know what to say here, this is such a bizarre statement that is so divorced from reality that you're either completely ignorant about what you're writing, you're engaging in wish fulfillment or you're on something.

The spending problems the US faces ARE NOT fixable by your band-aid measures. The US could implement everything you suggest and because you are working with static modeling rather than dynamic modeling, none of your predictions on outcome will have any resemblance to what will really happen. The US doesn't have a revenue shortfall problem - look at your corporate tax rates with respect to the rest of the Western World, you're just a tad below Japan's and everyone else is below your rate. Now you're suggesting that the rate be increased even further?