Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-newspaper-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-agemuch-colder-wintersdramatic-consequences/
Quote: AZDuffmanuh-oh, at least one media outlet is saying we may be headed to another Little Ice Age:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-newspaper-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-agemuch-colder-wintersdramatic-consequences/
Danish solar physicist Henrik Svensmark must not have
gotten the memo about warming. He's basing his conclusions
on real science and not politics. Of course its getting cooler,
it always gets cooler. Then it gets real cold and there's
another ice age. Duh..
The sun and the oceans, two things the warmers never want
to talk about. They effect the atmosphere, not the other way
around. Duh again..
Aren't warmers the same people Dan talks about who are
'entertained' when they lose in the casinos? Figures.
And based on past performance, said explanation will be unsourced and unverifiable.Quote: Beethoven9thDon't worry, the Warmers will come up with some cockamamie explanation.
Be safe everybody. We live another day!
http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/08/another-sundiving-comet-impressive-cme-sea-ice-data-2465008.html
Quote: wrobersonPolar Ice Melt nowhere near last year's record. Earth narrowly escapes solar "killshot"
Be safe everybody. We live another day!
http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/08/another-sundiving-comet-impressive-cme-sea-ice-data-2465008.html
Does that mean I need to clean up the house after all?
the glorious fraud Dr Hansen of NASA.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
Even if we have a cooler than average winter, so what? You gotta look at the trends, not a single year or even a 3-4 year set of data.
warmer, as it would be under GW, there would be hurricanes
every week. As it stands now, they've almost disappeared.
This year is the lowest in recorded history so far. There have
been fewer since Obama took over than any other president
before him.
You GW tinfoil hat wearers have been sold a bill of goods, I've
been saying it since the 80's.
And now for a small lesson in meteorology: Ocean temperature is only one factor behind hurricane production. Another is wind shear. The ocean supplies the energy. Reduced wind shear will result in less hurricanes, and indeed there is a La Nina effect in the Pacific and Atlantic ocean resulting in less wind shear this year. Meterologists have a difficult time predicting wind shear months in advance of their forecasts, so they make their best guess.
That said, 2001, 2002, and 2009 were three years where a hurricane didn't appear until September:
Gustav, 2002's first hurricane, didn't form until Sept 8 in a season with 4 hurricanes.
Erin, 2001's first hurricane didn't form until September 1. That was a year with 9 hurricanes.
And Fred was the first hurricane in 2009, forming on September 7, in a year with only 3 hurricanes and 9 named storms.
It's still early. Of course, you ignore the fact that 2010, 2011, and 2012 each had 19 tropical storms (tied for third) behind 1933 (20) and 2005 (28).
Quote: boymimboWhat are you talking about - lowest number in recorded history so far? It's August. There's been 6 named storms so far. In 2009, at this time, there was only 3 named storms, and none of them was hurricanes. Talk about tinfoil hat wearers...
Maybe he means this?
Quote:It's still early. Of course, you ignore the fact that 2010, 2011, and 2012 each had 19 tropical storms (tied for third) behind 1933 (20) and 2005 (28).
Hurricane intensity cycles over decades. When I was first aware of major news (late 1970s) there were few and I remember all the adults saying how "there used to be so many more." Over the years they picked up, until 2005 when they ran out of names and had to use the greek alphabet for the last few. Now we may be going down again.
We also have to take into account better observation methods will pick up more minor storms than years past.
I giggle when the AGW believers say, "you deniers can't take one year, you have to look at trends!" when the AGW crowd is the group that screams "CLIMATE CHANGE" to one event like Katrina or annual forest fires. I think more people are getting burned out on it and coming over to the side of the deniers, but we must be ever on the watch. The AGW crowd has powerful sponsors from universities wanting funding to the Arab oil producers.
Otherwise, the number and intensity of hurricanes over a short term trend (ie, less than 10 years) are not strong indicators of climate change anyway, because of the wind shear variable which is not really predictable.
Hurricane formation is fairly well understood however, and warmer oceans provide more energy for hurricanes to feed off of and intensify, which would be a product of climate change. And what you have seen 1995 is an 18 year period where hurricane intensity has been far greater than normal (in those 18 years, there have only been 5 years where hurricane intensity has been below average -- 1997, 2002, 2006, 2007, and 2009). That of course plays into politician and AGW hacks and is counterproductive to the global warming argument.
If you're going to watch that AGW crowd with powerful funding from Universities, you better keep a sharp eye out on doctors too. They're an evil bunch out to promote health even though "doctor deniers" state (quite correctly) that you can (generally) avoid bad health by exercising and having a good diet. Yikes.
Quote: boymimboIt's not like there are billions and billions (thank you, Carl) of dollars of existing tax breaks (R&D writeoffs) going to the fossils and nuclear energy that are still securing the GOP votes. It's not like Obama has taken away your right to fly or to drive or raised gasoline taxes to European levels.
So what are you saying, that R&D is not a legit expense and should not be allowed to be an expense against revenue? Why not? And why should Oil and Gas R&D be treated differently than R&D in anything from Apple Computer to Bayer?
In the oil world, however, you are allowed the Intangible Drilling Cost benefits, which allows you to write off the entire cost of the research and exploration in the year that the expense is incurred, AND you have the choice to do so as a tax credit (20%) or as an expense depending on what is better from a tax standpoint.
As a result, Exxon paid $0 to the US in income taxes in 2010, Chevron paid $200 million on 18.5 billion of income that year. Despite being an American Company, the majority of taxes are paid to foreign countries.
Normally, you would record the R&D as an expenditure or you would depreciated development or research costs against an asset over the life of the asset (that you create as a result of R&D).
So, for example, you spend $1,000,000 on an oil well, you would normally depreciate the oil well for the length of time you expect that oil well to produce, and you don't get to record the expense until the asset starts depreciating. So, for example, you spend $1,000,000 building a fracking well that lasts 5 years. You record 200,000 in depreciation expense every year and, with a tax rate of 15%, you get to write off 30,000 each year, normally.
However, the R&D tax credit allows you to take a 20% credit immediately, or $200,000.
Oil companies also get to deduct depreciation based on a percentage of revenue rather than at its actual rate of depletion.
Oil companies also get a domestic manufacturing deduction.
So, when Obama spends billions of dollars towards renewables, I don't have a problem with that. The estimated total in tax breaks given to oil companies over the last 10 years is about 90 billlion, so if you are going to give credits to oil companies, why not subsidies to renewables?
Seeing as how nothing whatsoever illegal is implied in this passage, this question must then be raised, "Do you know how your senators and member of Congress voted on that issue?" If so, what do they say about a practice that so clearly bothers you?Quote: boymimboIn the oil world, however, you are allowed the Intangible Drilling Cost benefits, which allows you to write off the entire cost of the research and exploration in the year that the expense is incurred, AND you have the choice to do so as a tax credit (20%) or as an expense depending on what is better from a tax standpoint. As a result, Exxon paid $0 to the US in income taxes in 2010, Chevron paid $200 million on 18.5 billion of income that year. Despite being an American Company, the majority of taxes are paid to foreign countries.
I was answering AZ's question - the government treat R&D expenditures differently than other kinds of expenses. I live in Canada - this does not affect me unless I am in the USA paying $3.75/gallon instead of $5.00/gallon in Canada.
From a libertarian standpoint, I am hoping AZ would be opposed to these subsidies and tax incentives to companies that pay very little in taxes to their home countries.
I think it's useful for governments to provide R&D credits to stimulate innovation. Other countries offer these credits as well. A job of a corporation's tax department is to minimize their overall tax liability by taking advantage of loopholes and regulations in the foreign countries they operate in. The loopholes in the American system allow major oil companies based in the United States to realize billions in profits and pay very little tax to their home country due to the generous loopholes that allow companies to deduct and take credits when incurred rather than over the useful life of the asset, which is something that is not granted to any other industry at the massive scale that the fossils are.
I would support lowering corporate tax rates in the USA (marginal rate of 35%) to something below the OECD average (25%) and closing some of the loopholes in order to have a competitive advantage and to shift the flow of multinational tax dollars to the USA. It's not that the major oil companies are not paying taxes -- they are. Just none of the taxes paid are going to the United States.
We can argue about the libertarian view, but we've argued this before, so there's no point in talking tax policy here.
Quote: boymimboActually, no. R&D is special. When you spend money on research and development, you should create an asset in the end (the value of your research) and you depreciate the development or research costs over the life of an asset.
In the oil world, however, you are allowed the Intangible Drilling Cost benefits, which allows you to write off the entire cost of the research and exploration in the year that the expense is incurred, AND you have the choice to do so as a tax credit (20%) or as an expense depending on what is better from a tax standpoint.
You should create an asset, but you might have a bust. And oil-drilling is special as drilling a well is not "R&D" per se, but a new refining method would be. I have no problem taking an expense as an expense the year the money flowed out of the bank. This is only fair.
Quote:As a result, Exxon paid $0 to the US in income taxes in 2010, Chevron paid $200 million on 18.5 billion of income that year. Despite being an American Company, the majority of taxes are paid to foreign countries.
So then XOM is similar to your average Obama voter in that regard?
That more taxes are paid to foreign countries goes back to the 1950s when tax laws were changed to allow an essential 50/50 split between country and company.
Quote:So, when Obama spends billions of dollars towards renewables, I don't have a problem with that. The estimated total in tax breaks given to oil companies over the last 10 years is about 90 billlion, so if you are going to give credits to oil companies, why not subsidies to renewables?
Because you are not "giving" oil companies anything, you are just treating the tax consequences different for oil wells than other tangible assets such as a steel mill. This makes sense as oil is different in that the price of oil and hence value of the well changes by the minute and while we can guesstimate "proven reserves" that number can change with better EOR methods. In the end, however, they still pay plenty in taxes at all levels.
Meanwhile Solyndra and others just cash checks and produce little to no wealth, paying no taxes.
If the US lowered their corporate tax rate overall to a rate below foreign countries, you would see tax departments of major corporation attempting to figure out how to pay taxes to the united states to avoid paying taxes to foreign countries at a higher rate.
Prices for all kinds of commodities, services, etcetera change all of the time. It is not fair, at all, to give different industries different tax consequences. If the value of your assets change, you're allowed to write them down based on FAS rules.
Come on, AZ, you're a libertarian. You loathe regulation. Yet there is a pile of legislation in the tax code that essentially allows oil companies to pay very little in taxes on billions of dollars of profit. The big five oil companies earned 133 billion in 2011 and had an effective tax rate of about 16% which is nothing close to the corporate tax rate of 35%.
The strength of the scientific method is that it postulates a hypothesis, then attempts to validate or disprove it by changing or observing a single variable, then restricts the conclusions to only that which has been proven by the study. All of these clauses get exploited in various ways by those with opposing ideas or agendae. Social sciences are among the hardest to validate and draw accurate conclusions.
Whether you're talking about the earth being flat, being born gay, global warming, evolution, the sun revolving around the earth, thousands of other things, the scientific theory has been used to prove, and in some cases disprove exactly that which it previously proved, whether there is truth in a perception. The beauty of the scientific method is that it must be an independently repeatable event to be a valid conclusion, and it uses known facts to extrapolate causes and results, without assumptions, belief systems, or conventional wisdom . If new facts are discovered that may contradict a conclusion, the exercise is re-run taking all new information into account, and may result in different, more informed conclusions. The common error today is that counterfactual efforts based on faith or opinion are given equal credence , driven by bankroll and ulterior motives. Cultural lore is the hardest to refute because there is an emotional bond to what was learned in formative years or is now conventional wisdom; conformity is the easier road, and people know what they know, without questioning why it's so.
I believe in the scientific method. Everything else is subject to change. Everything.
In that vein, I hold to the following conclusions referencing the topics above:
The earth is round, not flat.
Gay is not a preference or a choice. It is genetic programming.
Global warming (as anthropocentric climate change) is a real event, and threatens human existence, and most other species. Change or die.
Evolution is a real event, and creationism is not an equivalent alternative. The question of Intelligent Design remains open.
The earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun.
YMMV. If so, prove it.
The missing part of the scientific method would deal with that. It requires that the experiment and the results can be replicated. Lacking that aspect means that the conclusions cannot be construed as valid.Quote: beachbumbabsThe strength of the scientific method is that it postulates a hypothesis, then attempts to validate or disprove it by changing or observing a single variable, then restricts the conclusions to only that which has been proven by the study. All of these clauses get exploited in various ways by those with opposing ideas or agendae.
Quote:The beauty of the scientific method is that it must be an independently repeatable event to be a valid conclusion, and it uses known facts to extrapolate causes and results, without assumptions, belief systems, or conventional wisdom . If new facts are discovered that may contradict a conclusion, the exercise is re-run taking all new information into account, and may result in different, more informed conclusions.
Quote: boymimboIf you don't have an asset, of course it's an expense. Tax treatments however allow you to expense it even if becomes an asset. In all other industries, the cost of creating the asset gets capitalized and is depreciated over the life of the asset. The worldwide Financial Accounting Standards governs GAAP reporting. What oil companies are doing is taking a US only tax break (a credit) in order to minimize their tax burden. That tax break is a product of US regulation, something I thought you loathed.
Assets are created by investment. However, when you drill a well it may or may not create an asset. A producing well becomes an asset. A dry hole does not. So it makes sense that cost should be written off in the period it was incurred. If you had to write off the expense of every dry hole over more years then fewer wells will be drilled, which is bad for everyone.
Your "regulation" comment is a bit silly. Whether the tax break was there or not there would still be a tax code. What it does, and why I am in favor of it, is stimulate drilling and exploration. This increases supply. All of this is good for the economy. And none of it is a "subsidy" to oil companies.
Quote: AZDuffmanAssets are created by investment. However, when you drill a well it may or may not create an asset. A producing well becomes an asset. A dry hole does not. So it makes sense that cost should be written off in the period it was incurred. If you had to write off the expense of every dry hole over more years then fewer wells will be drilled, which is bad for everyone.
Your "regulation" comment is a bit silly. Whether the tax break was there or not there would still be a tax code. What it does, and why I am in favor of it, is stimulate drilling and exploration. This increases supply. All of this is good for the economy. And none of it is a "subsidy" to oil companies.
Wrong. It is fine to write off a hole, not fine to write off a working well, which is exactly was the tax code allows for. So you're okay with some laws but not others, just want to make that clear that it's a preferential thing. Laws are okay, as long as they're laws that support your political views. Got it.
Note that I'm fine with the R&D tax credit, but you should be fine for stimulus and/or tax breaks to be given to start up industries (renewables) too. I mean just because you think it's useless doesn't make it so.
Quote: AZDuffmanMeanwhile Solyndra and others just cash checks and produce little to no wealth, paying no taxes.
You would think conservatives would see the advantages of energy production at home, essentially, "private ownership" which solar panels can confer to a great extent.
Germany is suppose to be currently at 20% renewables with 51% in private hands because of panels.
Quote: rxwineYou would think conservatives would see the advantages of energy production at home, essentially, "private ownership" which solar panels can confer to a great extent.
Germany is suppose to be currently at 20% renewables with 51% in private hands because of panels.
We do see the advantage of production at home, which is why we support such things as drilling and Keystone XL. Solar panels, OTOH, need subsidies to survive, and even with such subsidies Solyndra and others still fail. We are better to tap coal, gas and oil while letting others produce panels at a loss.
Quote: 24BingoAnd if you defunded the military and divided the money evenly among the wells drilled between now and 2020, far more wells would be drilled, which would by that logic be good for everyone. This is a backdoor subsidy, a means of regulating commerce. If you think it's a useful subsidy, then that's fine, but don't pretend it's not what it is, and don't expect to be taken seriously when your defense rests on climatology being a vast conspiracy.
I won't even address your first sentence as it makes no sense.
Sorry, a "subsidy" is when you either give a direct check (eg: Solyndra, farm subsidies); guarantee purchase at a price (too many farm products to mention); of give "extra" tax credit (the EV tax credit.)
Oil companies are getting none of this. All they are getting is the ability to deduct expenses the same period those expenses happen. It is not "backdoor" and it is not "regulating commerce." If you need an example of regulating commerce, see the EV requirement CA has hit auto manufacturers with.
Costs associated with building an asset are not allowed to be deducted. Think of the great boom that the housing industry would have if you could write off the cost of building your home in the year it was built. Or think of the free loan money that small businesses would have if they could build their own buildings and just write off that expense in the year it was made instead of amortizing over the life of the building. Or if airlines could just write off planes in the year they were built, or if MGM could just write off CityCenter when they built it. Oil companies enjoy this tax break for its wells. They are allowed to claim accelerated depreciation which essentially is free money.
Assets are depreciated over the economic life of the asset (the time it is creating revenue). This assures that businesses report their activities properly and that assets reduce their value over its life. This is standard Generally Approved Accounting Principles set out by the International Accounting Standards and implemented around the world.
Nonetheless, governments do this all of the time. Bush implemented accelerated depreciation for small businesses after 2001 (which has expired), and in the hurricane recovery zone after Katrina (also expired).
And if you want to complain about Solyndra where government money went bust, you can look at Texaco who filed for bankruptcy in 1987 despite receiving billions in tax breaks.
Tax breaks and subsidies are government tools used to promote businesses and individual policies. If you are truly libertarian, you would support a flat tax on corporations and the same on individuals with as little government regulation and tax code as possible.
Quote: boymimbo
And if you want to complain about Solyndra where government money went bust, you can look at Texaco who filed for bankruptcy in 1987 despite receiving billions in tax breaks.
Why do you keep equating tax treatment with outright handouts? Yes, Texaco went bankrupt. Probably had to do with losing a huge lawsuit to Chevron and the crash in oil prices in the mid-1980s. There was much pain in the oil industry at the time.
Quote:Tax breaks and subsidies are government tools used to promote businesses and individual policies. If you are truly libertarian, you would support a flat tax on corporations and the same on individuals with as little government regulation and tax code as possible.
I totally support a 10% flat tax with no deductions paid from the first dollar in income. And yes I realize that means the person working at a minimum wage job pays the same tax as Buffet. Tough. Better still I prefer a consumption tax on all items, after we change the Constitution to eliminate the power to tax income. And yes that means food, medicine, etc. Again not a penny more than 10%. Then cut spending to match.
Quote: AZDuffmanI totally support a 10% flat tax with no deductions
Hear, hear!
Liberals love talking about 'marriage equality', but what about 'tax-rate equality'? Guess they're bigots who don't support equal rights. ;)
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do you keep equating tax treatment with outright handouts?
...because they are. That's exactly what they are. Where do you think those taxes are going? There's no difference at all between charging someone tax then handing them a check and giving them a special writeoff. That's like getting $20 of office supplies, paying with a hundred, pocketing the change, and calling it $100.
If there should be no income tax, there ought to be no penalty for theft of money owned by non-commercial entities. After all, they don't owe the government anything, do they?
Quote: 24Bingo...because they are.
Wrong! Tax cuts and free handouts are E.D.
BTW, feel free to send me 10% of your next paycheck (assuming that you work), and I'll send you back 5% and call it a "handout".
Quote: 24Bingo...because they are. That's exactly what they are. Where do you think those taxes are going? There's no difference at all between charging someone tax then handing them a check and giving them a special writeoff. That's like getting $20 of office supplies, paying with a hundred, pocketing the change, and calling it $100.
Uh, no. Lets use your office supply example. XOM is a good customer so the store owner says he will give them a 10% discount on what they purchase. Solyndra comes in and they take what they like off the shelf and do not pay anything.
See the difference?
Quote:If there should be no income tax, there ought to be no penalty for theft of money owned by non-commercial entities. After all, they don't owe the government anything, do they?
I've read this four times and can't make out what you are saying.
LOLQuote: AZDuffmanI've read this four times and can't make out what you are saying.
But if you think that's bad, here's a passage from one of his previous posts:
Quote:Like a creationist digging up quotes from Darwin, you seek to impeach some god, of whom understanding, even understanding of the pursuit of understanding, is a horrible thing, so not giving a damn where he comes from or why he is what he is, you look for what "even" this god "admits," since surely these acolytes cannot attack such a proposition, since surely these creatures of whom understanding is anathema could only be brainwashed acolytes. So, satisfied, you stand and fling feces.
WTF?!?!
Except it's like this. XOM is a good customer so the store owner says he will give them a 60% discount as long as they keep their business with them (the corporate tax rate is 35%, major oil companies pay 16%, so they are getting a 60% discount on what they should be paying). A number of other companies who are new customers are granted credit (the loan), not just Solyndra. 98% pay (All except Solyndra pay, according to DOE). Which would you rather have as a customer? An old friend with a 60% discount or a bunch of new ones with no discount but a 98% payback?
The fact is that 34.4 billion in federal loans have been granted via DOE Loans and has created 60,000 jobs. The DEFAULT rate is 2%. Tesla was loaned 465 million, and it was fully repaid 9 years early.
So, yeah, there's that.
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, no. Lets use your office supply example. XOM is a good customer so the store owner says he will give them a 10% discount on what they purchase. Solyndra comes in and they take what they like off the shelf and do not pay anything.
See the difference?
In the case of Solyndra, this is fair, but for reasons specific to Solyndra.
Quote: AZDuffmanI've read this four times and can't make out what you are saying.
All right. You know those guys you see sometimes who wear all blue and carry pistols? What do you think they (...are meant to...) do, and who do you think is paying them to do it?
Quote: Beethoven9thWTF?!?!
You know, the funny thing is, I can't actually find that quote, but from my hazy memory, I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you when I wrote it. (I think the "god" in this case was Reagan.)
Quote: 24Bingo
All right. You know those guys you see sometimes who wear all blue and carry pistols? What do you think they (...are meant to...) do, and who do you think is paying them to do it?
Crips?
The underlying implication is that the government owns all my money. That is evil and invalid. I acquired those assets through the sweat of my brow.Quote: AZDuffmanI've read this four times and can't make out what you are saying.
Quote: ?If there should be no income tax, there ought to be no penalty for theft of money owned by non-commercial entities. After all, they don't owe the government anything, do they?
The major element in the U.S. budget is entitlements, all for "social uplift." Domestic protection is tiny in comparison.Quote: 24BingoWhat good would the sweat of your brow be if anyone who could sway a crowd could kill you and walk away with it, or just take it while you weren't looking? With a functioning state protecting you, they can't, and that's the main function you're paying for, not roads or business subsidies. So if you don't owe the government an income or faculty tax, sure, the government has no right to the money, but then what business do they have protecting it?
Here is Wikipedia on the federal budget:
"Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures are funded by more permanent Congressional appropriations and so are considered mandatory spending. Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Mandatory spending accounted for 57.4% of total federal outlays in FY2012, with net interest payments accounting for an additional 6.3%. In 2000, these were 53.2% and 12.5%, respectively.[13]
Here is Kiplinger's more detailed breakdown:
To understand how hard it is to cut federal spending, consider this: About three-fifths of it -- 57.3%, as I figure it -- goes out in direct payments to individual Americans or is spent on their personal behalf (for example, by health-care and housing providers). Here are the key transfer payments and their share of total federal spending:
Health care: 23.8% (13% for the general senior population, 7.8% for the poor and 3% for veterans).
Pensions: 22.2% (19% for Social Security recipients, 3.2% for federal civilian and military retirees combined).
Unemployment benefits: 2.8%.
Food stamps and other nutrition programs for the poor: 2.7%.
Housing subsidies for the poor: 1.7%.
Cash payments to the disabled poor: 1.3%.
Low-income tax credit (direct payment to the lowest earners): 1.2%.
Cash welfare for poor mothers with children: 0.8%.
College-tuition aid (not including GI bill): 0.5%.
Crop subsidies: 0.3%.
