mbj, Co2, and forum expertise (split from E2016 thread)
it into a global warming thread, who needs it.
The mods around here are few and far between
anymore. I'm outa here. If I wanted to read about
fantasies I would go to a religion thread, where all
talk about GW belongs anyway.
The Wizard first mentioned conservation or minimal consumption? (I don't know what either have to do with gambling at all.)Quote: EvenBobBluejay has totally hijacked
it into a global warming thread, who needs it.
Quote: TwirdmanThis means even after accounting for the absortion of other sources humans produce an exess of 12 gigatons of CO2 a year. So humans are responsbile for taking a net negative system to a net positive system and hence are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Even if these numbers are correct, it still does not make a correlation. The Sun is not a steady temperature, it has been shown that as she heats more or less the temps on earth change. Volcanoes erupt more or less often, blocking or letting in more sunlight. My point is that there are too many variables to show that CO2 is a problem. Furthermore, even if it is happening, historically warmer is better. There is zero reason to believe we are at the "right" temperature right now vs a few degrees warmer or cooler. If you were not told about global warming you would not even notice a difference.
Quote:Honestly though I don't know why I bothered with this post since you are just going to ignore it and continue to claim knowledge in exceedence of the vast majority of people who have devoted their entire life to studying this because you just know things in your gut.
I heard an old timer say it well. We are born with a bucket filled with common sense. As you add too much learning to the bucket, the common sense starts to spill out. Common sense tells me that you cannot compare the temperature now with that of even 200 years ago. It tells me that if you cannot compare with good measurements over 500,000 years, or 1% of the time the Earth has been here, the trend is too short. It tells me that too many people are making too much money off of scaring people about it for me to swallow what they are saying without asking these questions. It makes me say that when government officials are saying that being a denier should be a crime then I am REALLY onto something with my questioning it.
Someone who is spending their entire life studying it as you say probably has a vested interest in making more believers. Believe if you want, I will use my own judgement not someone else's.
I think I will take a break from this thread as it has as usual devolved into the believers shouting "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" when I make a point, along with some borderline personal insults.
The great majority of scientists (including ones working for major corporations) do their science without bias. This includes climate change. Most scientists in the field would be strong proponents of "doing the right thing", which is getting out of carbon, just like the scientists who linked CFCs with the disappearance of the ozone layer were strong proponents of switching to alternate ways of cooling (which was an enormous success). The evidence for climate change includes testing for the negatives and all of the common testing techniques that are used in the rest of science, to our gain.
You may not like the policy that spews out because of it, but don't blame the science for that - blame the politicians.
Sure about that?Quote: AZDuffmanIt tells me that if you cannot compare with good measurements over 500,000 years, or 1% of the time the Earth has been here...
I wonder if it has anything to do with the latest forum stats. Wait a second or two for the graph to pop up... http://www.trafficestimate.com/wizardofvegas.comQuote: EvenBob
The mods around here are few and far between anymore.
Quote: ParadigmTo suggest that income tax returns are a reflection of someone's actual income, particularly a real estate professional, the statement is so misinformed as to be laughable.
I knew someone would say that.
Keep laughing.
Meanwhile the rest of us are wondering what he's hiding.
Are you suggesting he's a tax cheat?Quote: ParadigmTo suggest that income tax returns are a reflection of someone's actual income, particularly a real estate professional, the statement is so misinformed as to be laughable.
Quote: ams288I knew someone would say that.
Keep laughing.
Meanwhile the rest of us are wondering what he's hiding.
I will....it is always makes me laugh when individuals speak on topics they don't understand.
It would be like me making some misinformed statement regarding climate change. I would expect MBJ to be laughing at me. He clearly has done more research and has more knowledge on the topic than I do.
Of course I could always come back at MBJ with a post like "Meanwhile the rest of us are wondering why the polar glaciers are really GROWING in size".
But I try not to make comments like that...it is so embarrassing.
Quote: MichaelBluejayAre you suggesting he's a tax cheat?
No
Quote: ParadigmI will....it is always makes me laugh when individuals speak on topics they don't understand.
It would be like me making some misinformed statement regarding climate change. I would expect MBJ to be laughing at me. He clearly has done more research and has more knowledge on the topic than I do.
Of course I could always come back at MBJ with a post like "Meanwhile the rest of us are wondering why the polar glaciers are really GROWING in size".
But I try not to make comments like that...it is so embarrassing.
Hopefully you will still be around to analyze Trump's returns for all of the non-experts when he releases them.
Oh wait, that'll never happen because he's never going to release them.
He couldn't take the embarrassment.
Ingenious contrabulation is fine.
Give the auditor a couple K.
It's just the IRS.....
It's not like you have to shoot anyone, you don't have to get blood on your hands or anything.
We are just talking about money. It's easy if you have some.
Otherwise, move quickly, wear gloves ;-)
Quote: ams288Hopefully you will still be around to analyze Trump's returns for all of the non-experts when he releases them.
Oh wait, that'll never happen because he's never going to release them.
He couldn't take the embarrassment.
They will show losses and the misinformed will say he is a tax cheat and doesn't pay his fair share. There will be large donations to Private Foundations that Trump controls timed in years he has to show larger income....the misinformed will say those contributions aren't 'real' charitable giving. Nothing any tax expert provides as far as actual insight will change anyone's opinion.
It is no different than Bernie saying Hillary is in bed with Wall St. because she gets appearance/speaking fees from talking to the banks. "Release the transcripts....release the transcripts"...it is all laughable.
Why would any candidate release their tax returns...there is zero upside to doing it and less downside to not releasing them in a time for them to have an impact on the election.
But please let's keep the discussion going, it is so....'informative'? Wait, that may not be the right word....
Quote: ParadigmWhy would any candidate release their tax returns...
Because they ALL do it.
Except Trump.
Quote: ams288Because they ALL do it.
Except Trump.
Well if EVERYONE is doing it, it must be the right thing to do...Trump is clearly an idiot and you clearly are the smartest "guy" in the room, next?
Quote: ParadigmWell if EVERYONE is doing it, it must be the right thing to do...Trump is clearly an idiot and you clearly are the smartest "guy" in the room, next?
I agree with half that statement.
Quote: ParadigmThey will show losses and the misinformed will say he is a tax cheat and doesn't pay his fair share. There will be large donations to Private Foundations that Trump controls timed in years he has to show larger income....the misinformed will say those contributions aren't 'real' charitable giving. Nothing any tax expert provides as far as actual insight will change anyone's opinion.
It is no different than Bernie saying Hillary is in bed with Wall St. because she gets appearance/speaking fees from talking to the banks. "Release the transcripts....release the transcripts"...it is all laughable.
Why would any candidate release their tax returns...there is zero upside to doing it and less downside to not releasing them in a time for them to have an impact on the election.
But please let's keep the discussion going, it is so....'informative'? Wait, that may not be the right word....
Perhaps there is nothing or something of value can be learned from any candidates' tax return. However, candidate running for the most important position in the world should released his/her tax return to help voters to make appropriate decision.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/author-i-saw-trumps-tax-returns-and-you-should-too/ar-BBsXtYe?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
They're not. After all, how would a warming Earth mean growing glaciers?Quote: ParadigmOf course I could always come back at MBJ with a post like "Meanwhile the rest of us are wondering why the polar glaciers are really GROWING in size".
Quote: MichaelBluejayThey're not. After all, how would a warming Earth mean growing glaciers?
I don't think he was actually saying they are growing in size, I think he was just trying to come up with a statement that was blatantly untrue to compare to me saying Trump's income isn't what Trump says it is.
It's a weird and faulty comparison on his part, but.... oh well.
Quote: ams288I don't think he was actually saying they are growing in size, I think he was just trying to come up with a statement that was blatantly untrue to compare to me saying Trump's income isn't what Trump says it is.
It's a weird and faulty comparison on his part, but.... oh well.
What you actually indicated is that Trump's tax returns would indicate some "low level of income" that "his ego couldn't handle" if the returns were released.
What I said is you don't know what your talking about when it comes to someone's real income and what is reported on a tax return, particularly as it relates to a real estate developer.
It really isn't "weird or faulty" at all...you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to taxes and finance. Just stick to debates on social issues, you usually can at least hold your own in those exchanges. The rest of the time is just its an intellectual embarrassment...oh well.
Quote: Paradigmyou don't know what you are talking about when it comes to taxes and finance. Just stick to debates on social issues, you usually can at least hold your own in those exchanges. The rest of the time is just its an intellectual embarrassment...oh well.
I actually have my masters degree in Accounting with a specialization in tax.
But please.... Continue telling me what you think I don't know about various issues.
A second level certified bean counter with a specialty in taking money from others? I am impressed. I just thought you were a Democrat.Quote: ams288http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/12/what-donald-trumps-tax-returns-could-show-about-his-finances/
I would guess that his charitable contributions are a disgrace for someone who claims to be worth $10 billion.
What does it take to be a "first-level" bean counter? And what level are you and Paradigm at? I'm guessing you both consider yourselves more expert than ams because you have less education and training in that area.Quote: TwoFeathersATLA second level certified bean counter with a specialty in taking money from others? I am impressed. I just thought you were a Democrat.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI'm guessing you both consider yourselves more expert than ams because you have less education and training in that area.
I went to a multi marketing seminar once and now I know more about health and nutrition than doctors and other health specialists
AMS said he had a masters, I would call that second level, which would be above and beyond a simple 4 year degree. He mentioned a specialty or something in Tax. I was not trying to be demeaning in any way, not until I called him a Democrat ;-)Quote: MichaelBluejayWhat does it take to be a "first-level" bean counter? And what level are you and Paradigm at? I'm guessing you both consider yourselves more expert than ams because you have less education and training in that area.
Quote: ams288I actually have my masters degree in Accounting with a specialization in tax.
But please.... Continue telling me what you think I don't know about various issues.
So with all that training and education, you think a tax return is an accurate reflection on income...oh well.
So in case anyone's keeping score:Quote: ParadigmSo with all that training and education, you think a tax return is an accurate reflection on income...oh well.
(1) Untrained right-wingers know more about climate science than scientists.
(2) Untrained right-wingers know more about how to accurately rank presidents than presidential scholars.
(3) Untrained right-wingers know more about accounting and taxes than accountants and tax specialists.
Nice universe you've got there.
And I kind of do taxes for a living...like I own/run a CPA practice...I got clients that pay me a pretty good hourly rate because I kinda sorta know my way around a tax return...you know real estate developer clients.
It is kinda like you sorta know about carbon footprints...see where I am going here...let's agree it would be laughable for me to argue with you about anything to do about climate change...and regardless of education and training, AMS tax return post was ridiculous and he knows it.
Quote: MichaelBluejaySo in case anyone's keeping score:
(1) Untrained right-wingers know more about climate science than scientists.
(2) Untrained right-wingers know more about how to accurately rank presidents than presidential scholars.
(3) Untrained right-wingers know more about accounting and taxes than accountants and tax specialists.
Nice universe you've got there.
Quote: Paradigm
And I kind of do taxes for a living...like I own/run a CPA practice...I got clients that pay me a pretty good hourly rate because I kinda sorta know my way around a tax return...you know real estate developer clients.
It is kinda like you sorta know about carbon footprints...see where I am going here...let's agree it would be laughable for me to argue with you about anything to do about climate change...and regardless of education and training, AMS tax return post was ridiculous and he knows it.
Paradigm 1
MBJ 0
The thing is, us "right-wingers" as MBJ calls us, the thing is we are capable of using our own minds and education to question something. We do not wait for a scientist or CPA to tell us what to think. And we actually do dare question a statement. If a person is confident in their position they may of course defend it. But in the case of global warming we are actually seeing some left-wingnuts who so cannot defend their position they are suggesting criminal charges for those that dare question "the science" and "the scientists." Here we have some who question a statement on taxes and the return to the don't-you-dare-question line.
There is no real reason to question Trump's taxes. The poster who said there is has given no reason. The posters who are questioning it are probably the same ones who said nobody should dare ask for Obama;s birth certificate, despite that being a Constitutional requirement to be POTUS.
Quote: ParadigmTo suggest that income tax returns are a reflection of someone's actual income, particularly a real estate professional, the statement is so misinformed as to be laughable.
I thought one's income tax returns is (or should be) a reflection of that person's income (manual labor, realize capital gain, dividend, interest, speaking fee, etc... ), but not asset. My inquiring mind wants to know what other type of incomes are exempted from reporting to the IRS?
Quote: 777I thought one's income tax returns is (or should be) a reflection of that person's income (manual labor, realize capital gain, dividend, interest, speaking fee, etc... ), but not asset. My inquiring mind wants to know what other type of incomes are exempted from reporting to the IRS?
Let's assume I don't actually get a paycheck. What I do is buy and sell things. All I did this year is buy $20,000,000 in stock. It's now worth $30,000,000. If I didn't sell it I made $0 this year. Next year I sell it for $22,000,000. Even though I lost $8,000,000 that year, I owe taxes on the $2,000,000 I made.
It is similar in concept for those that keep money in their business. The Bills were initially bought for $250,000. Eventually sold for $1,400,000,000. There were no tax consequences for the 6 decades it appreciated until it was actually sold.
Kind of a simplistic answer but the concept stands....
Quote: SOOPOOLet's assume I don't actually get a paycheck. What I do is buy and sell things. All I did this year is buy $20,000,000 in stock. It's now worth $30,000,000. If I didn't sell it I made $0 this year. Next year I sell it for $22,000,000. Even though I lost $8,000,000 that year, I owe taxes on the $2,000,000 I made.
It is similar in concept for those that keep money in their business. The Bills were initially bought for $250,000. Eventually sold for $1,400,000,000. There were no tax consequences for the 6 decades it appreciated until it was actually sold.
Kind of a simplistic answer but the concept stands....
I know the concept of realized and unrealized gains.
In your example 1, you originally had an unrealized gain of $10M, and this is not considered "income", but your subsequent realized investment gain is $2M, and I think your capital gain of $2M should be considered as "income". Similar concept is applicable to your example 2. Right???
Quote: TheGrimReaper13I agree to an extent, and especially when it comes to self-anointed "experts". What do you think of the self-anointed gambling math "experts" in here?
We've got BBB, who "circulates in Vegas"; BJ, who writes how-to articles on who knows what on cargo ship rides; Mission who writes "articles" on demand; and a guy who passed the tin cup, lost a job at the Venetian soon after starting, and bragged about buying souls.
So, despite the malicious intent of this misinformation, I am going to respond to the comment about me, since there are more people, new ones all the time, and I am not willing to be miscast or misrepresented by a troll.
I have never held myself up as a math expert here; in fact have stated the opposite hundreds of times. I have never claimed to be an expert in gaming, designing of games, or "circulating in Vegas", which I take to be an aspersion of chip-whoring or the like. I AM a retired expert in aviation, but that's usually not pertinent here; it's just the area of expertise I am proud to claim, with over 60,000 hours of service, advanced degree, national recognition, and many awards of merit to back it up.
If I have knowledge of some particular facet or fact that IS pertinent to this forum, I'm happy to share, along with crediting the source if I learned it from reading this board. Otherwise, I'm a volunteer admin because I'm willing to spend the hours on it and pay the Wizard back for his enormous investment in providing the resources he has. Might be time to start paying me, though... :). (Still wouldn't make me an expert).
Furthermore, on moderators as a whole, we are not automatically "experts". We each have our strengths. We each share what we think or know. But the value of this forum, other than the obvious asset of the Wizard, is not in the moderators. It's in the community that participates (which includes the moderators as participants). There are many bona fide "experts" here in THIS field, from mathematicians to designers to distributors to Advantage Players to enthusiasts, and the different perspectives each brings is what makes the discussion so valuable and worthwhile.
You can go anywhere on the Internet to read disparaging comments, bad information unchallenged, profanity, and meaningless chatter. You have to come here (and there are a couple other worthy websites) to talk to the true professionals about gaming and get accurate information in return. Moderators just work to keep the conversation flowing and worth reading, regardless of subject.
/rant. TGR, won't miss you. Jerkface.
She knows I love her.....
This goes for intelligent people of any political persuasion. The implication that "left-wingers" are incapable of using their own minds is false, as is the implication that "left-wingers" wait for a scientist or CPA to tell them what to think.Quote: AZDuffmanThe thing is, us "right-wingers" as MBJ calls us, the thing is we are capable of using our own minds and education to question something. We do not wait for a scientist or CPA to tell us what to think.
It's nuts to suggest criminal charges for those that question the science. That's the entire point of peer review: to question the science. But there's a big difference between qualified peer review and uneducated skepticism. There are a lot of uneducated people who believe that the Martingale is a winning casino system for roulette and that it can overcome the house edge. It can't, and nobody qualified believes it can, but the simple truth is that not everybody is qualified. You don't want the unqualified believers in the Martingale running your casinos, you want someone qualified by education and experience. In the case of global warming, nobody qualified believes that the planet isn't warming. There are lots of unqualified people who think everything's fine, but those aren't the people you want making policy. That's not just true for climate policy, either. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't understand astrophysics designing spaceships, you wouldn't want someone who doesn't understand biochemistry designing pharmaceuticals, and you wouldn't want someone who doesn't understand structural engineering designing skyscrapers.Quote:And we actually do dare question a statement. If a person is confident in their position they may of course defend it. But in the case of global warming we are actually seeing some left-wingnuts who so cannot defend their position they are suggesting criminal charges for those that dare question "the science" and "the scientists."
But the difference is that everyone instinctively knows that biochemists should be designing drugs, while many people dispute that climate scientists should be designing climate policy. For whatever reason, there is a much stronger distrust of (or lack of belief in the validity of) certain sciences than others. In my estimation, it has to do with the gross failure of the human mind to instinctively comprehend randomness. That's not a moral judgment, it's just the way we're wired. In other words, the reason certain people think they have winning gambling systems without studying probability theory is the same reason that certain people think they know global warming doesn't exist without studying climatology: they can't intuit variance so they substitute their own improper intuition for actual study. The example that most readily springs to mind is when Senator Inhofe brought a snowball to the Senate floor (in February of last year) as proof that global warming is a hoax. That's like saying "the Martingale works because I've always won $1 with it, and I've been playing for more than an hour." Inhofe also pointed to God as the reason global warming can't exist because, he reasons, there is no way humanity would "be able to change what He is doing in the climate."
There is certainly ample room to study the degree and attribution of the causes of global warming, and what to do to mitigate those effects, but acting as if it doesn't exist at all forecloses those efforts. Ignoring the trends means living in a future where Canada -- and not the US -- is this continent's breadbasket, and that puts the livelihoods of over three million US farmers at risk. That's not what anyone on either side of the aisle should be aiming for.
Canadian tundra is still almost free, why is that?
Turns out, Canadian farmers are smart enough to grow peaches too.Quote: TwoFeathersATLI think the Nebraska farmers are smart enough to grow oranges.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-new-crops-canada-19249
Edit: I will be sad when maple syrup is no longer a thing.
Edit #2: I read a science-fiction series where humanity was saved in part because aliens were in love with maple syrup. Clearly we need to prevent climate change from spoiling the sugar maple crops as insurance against alien incursion. ("Live Free or Die" by John Ringo - it had a few pretty cool concepts in it.)
The range of the maples has varied over time, sometimes farther south, sometimes farther north.
I am not worried about the maples.
I am concerned about my sons, and their children.
I have not heard yet why we wouldn't be better off with a warmer climate. Or a colder one for that matter.
I am only slightly afraid of the dark.
We -- personally -- might enjoy a warmer climate. I live in Oregon and we just broke the record for the total number of 80+ degree days this early in the year (it's about 88 today, shhh, don't tell the Californians). But without mitigation we'll have to adapt to some pretty drastic changes over the next several decades. By 2100, based on existing trends, scientists expect that Chinook salmon will be extinct and the beach at Waikiki will be gone. Can humanity deal with that? For a while, anyway, we have a bunch of really smart biologists who can probably figure out a way to keep us alive even if the planet becomes less hospitable. But do we want to live in a world where you can't eat salmon nigiri at sunset on Waikiki?Quote: TwoFeathersATLI have not heard yet why we wouldn't be better off with a warmer climate. Or a colder one for that matter.
I am only slightly afraid of the dark.
It's entirely possible that humanity won't survive to 2100 anyway, if the futurists who predict the technological singularity are correct and a sentient AI arises to enslave or eradicate our inferior biological selves. But it doesn't seem wise to bank on an earlier extinction event as justification for barreling headlong toward a poorer future.
I knew I didn't like you much but didn't know why;-)
You should profit from global warming, not just you, the whole state.
Buy Canada, buy now, almost free.
Some bargains still available in Alaska ( Russians looked pretty dumb, now looking smarter )
Quote:It's entirely possible that humanity won't survive to 2100 anyway, if the futurists who predict the technological singularity are correct and a sentient AI arises to enslave or eradicate our inferior biological selves.
We should be so lucky, so as to last that long.
I fear nuclear attack will basically spell "game over" for us all.
Not going to speculate who, or when, but I fear it is inevitable, given our history of aggression against one another.
Yeah, and who didn't see it coming?
poof, all gone
AI? So far, when computer gets sassy I turn it off.
I haven't needed to shoot one yet.
Remember the Boy Scouts motto......
Quote: TwoFeathersATL
I have not heard yet why we wouldn't be better off with a warmer climate. Or a colder one for that matter.
I am only slightly afraid of the dark.
Historically warmer is better but it is very arrogant to assume that what we have now is the most perfect it can be in a climate that has changed continually for billions of years. I will take warmer of the year without a summer anytime.
"Most perfect" is relative. For the majority of Earth's history, humans did not -- and could not have -- existed. Yes, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but for the first 2 billion years it looked like Mustafar from the Star Wars universe (and as an added bonus, had a mostly methane atmosphere). You did not want to live here:Quote: AZDuffmanHistorically warmer is better but it is very arrogant to assume that what we have now is the most perfect it can be in a climate that has changed continually for billions of years. I will take warmer of the year without a summer anytime.
We are fragile creatures, and our ecosystem as we know it is also fragile. Life itself is hardy, and has taken many forms over the eons, but history has shown that shocks to the planet have caused both explosions of new species and widespread extinction events. Life in some form will almost certainly go on if humans produce another shock to the planet -- whether that's by global nuclear war, disrupting the climate, global pandemic (zombie apocalypse, anyone?) -- but the fate of humanity as a species is far less certain. The policy question is simple: should we maximize our species' chance for long-term survival or not? Because there's a word that describes virtually all species that didn't do that.
Extinct.
Quote: MathExtremist"Most perfect" is relative.
<snip>
We are fragile creatures, and our ecosystem as we know it is also fragile. Life itself is hardy, and has taken many forms over the eons, but history has shown that shocks to the planet have caused both explosions of new species and widespread extinction events. Life in some form will almost certainly go on if humans produce another shock to the planet -- whether that's by global nuclear war, disrupting the climate, global pandemic (zombie apocalypse, anyone?) -- but the fate of humanity as a species is far less certain. The policy question is simple: should we maximize our species' chance for long-term survival or not? Because there's a word that describes virtually all species that didn't do that.
Extinct.
Nicely said. Don't forget A.I. as a threat.
I don't think any species, that we have a record of, has done a very good job of 'maximizing' their chances thus far, at least not above the microbe level. I like that the discussion continues, possible scenarios are examined, measurements are taken, etc.
Still not willing to venture any odds on us getting it even close to correct ;-)
Quote: beachbumbabsSo, despite the malicious intent of this misinformation, I am going to respond to the comment about me, since there are more people, new ones all the time, and I am not willing to be miscast or misrepresented by a troll.
. . . .
I do not know BBB in the slightest and she has sometimes been mad or irritated with the tone of something I have posted. However, I am almost always impressed with her posts because they are consistently thoughtful, balanced and well-written. She never claims to be a know-it-all (which none of us truly are) but clearly does know quite a lot - and she knows how to think and make judgments. The Wiz is in a class by himself because of his accomplishments and his inquisitiveness, but IMO, BBB is the best of the mods when it comes to participating in the social life of the forum.
I do have a question about The Grim Reaper's lifetime ban. I have seen the NCAA punish college coaches more harshly for lieing to the NCAA investigators than for buying hookers for recruits - and I have never liked that. Congress does that too - lieing to congress is more unforgivable than felonies against common people. Also, killing a cop is punishable by summary execution at the hands of cops, whereas murderers of other people are usually arrested and tried. I completely agree that TheGrimReaper's personal comments about the mods were a banning offense. My question is: do you punish personal attacks against moderators more severely than personal attacks against others? It would be human nature to do so.
