(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SnTMan]

Acutally, Exxon/Mobil (or any business for that matter) doesn't pay ANY taxes. Their customers do. This seems obvious, however it is rarely acknowledged.

Regards,

Mike

 

[TomDOT]

Mike, you're giving a surface-plausible argument which is a basically false premise. Money in the economy is a continuous flow, and you count the taxes as "paid" at the point it is taken out of the private economy by the government.

You can get as recursive/ridiculous as you like with the pseudologic you presented. Exxon's customers (fueling stations) don't pay ANY taxes, THEIR customers pay the taxes, since they pay the fueling stations. No, it's the next level of payers, the widget factory who employs the fuel customers, because they pay the paychecks for the fueling station customers. No, it's the widget buyers who pay the taxes for Exxon, because they buy the widgets which pay for the salaries which pay for the employees who buy the fuel from the fueling stations who buy the fuel from Exxon. Continue ad nauseum.

 

[TenPenny]

"Acutally, Exxon/Mobil (or any business for that matter) doesn't pay ANY taxes. Their customers do. This seems obvious, however it is rarely acknowledged.

Regards,

Mike "

Indeed, and by this same logic, the customers are the ones responsible for the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

I hear that line touted frequently, by people who don't seem to grasp the actual concepts of business, and those who are under the delusion that all of Exxon's customers pay income tax in the USA.

It's a funny world when people accept half baked and poorly thought out arguments, touted by self interested robber barons.

 

[CajunCenturion]

The single largest fallacy regarding removing corporate taxes is that the money would be effectively and ethically redistributed into the local economy.

I find your argument self-contradictory.

==> a large some of this would go directly to CEO salaries.
And what would that CEO actually do with that extra money? Hide it under a mattress? Or would (s)he put that money back into the economy through the purchase of goods and services or through further investments? Even if the money is simply deposited in a bank, that money then becomes available for other people to borrow. That extra money, rather than be filtered and skimmed through over-bloated government bureaucracy and disbursed to bridges to nowhere, would find a far more direct path into the economy through people who are already vested in the local community.

==> Corporations are responsible to the board and investors; at the end of the day, they are charged to increase profits, pure and simple
And exactly how does increasing executive pay increase profits?

==> In fact they are LEGALLY obligated to maximize profits,
==> Corporations must hold the well being of their shareholders above the well being of the community as a whole or its employees.
Yes, which is why the board is far more likely to direct that money back to investors rather than increasing executive pay. In other words, reducing corporate profits will increase return on investments, thus putting more working capital into the economy.

==> I’m a huge advocate for education reform
As am I. However, over the last several decades education reform has been consistent with the consolidation of power and control into federal hands with increased programs, regulations, and oversight. Yet, the education system has gotten worse, and as we continue to consolidate, centralize control, and standardize, the education system continues to degrade. It bring everyone down to the least common denominator. Why would any sane person suggest that continuing such an approach be a good thing. It we really want to change the results, we need to change our approach. We need to return flexibility to the system, and allow education to touch individuals. The federal government does not, in fact, cannot deal with things at an individual level. That's where local control really benefits the kids.

However, I get your point about some locality wishing to impose some sort of creationist thinking, or something really off-the-wall, into the curriculum, and I like you, would find that horrible. But what if some local community through their own democratic processes did so? Well, do we live in a democracy or not? Or is it only a democracy when it's convenient and consistent to our own personal convictions? That aside, from a more practical standpoint, what if a community did just that? Would you move your family there? Would you locate a business in that community? Do you think that area would experience job growth? Would you want to be part of that local community? I think not; I certainly wouldn't, and I would suspect, neither would most people. The bottom line is that such a community would not be able to sustain an economic base; it would die off on its own.

I have no objections with a social safety net. I have a problem with it being run and managed by the federal government. Given that you said, "Ignoring the basic human empathy necessary to understand why, on a humanitarian level, these programs are important, there are economic benefits to them as well.", who better to handle these than the local communities who stand to gain the most of the economic benefit.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rconnor]

The point of TenPenny’s comment was that the bulk of any corporate savings through removing corporate income tax would not go to the local general public (of course he wasn’t saying it would ALL go to the CEO’s). Some would go to increased salaries, of which a disproportionate percentage would go to upper level management (as is shown through salary disparity), some would be invested in capital projects and some would be paid out in dividends. Investment in capital projects could be local or international. Even with no corporate income tax, cheap (exploitable) labour in developing nations would still be very attractive and a portion of that money won’t be going to either the government or the local public. For local investment in capital projects, there will be jobs created, this is a positive. Dividends are paid out to shareholders, foreign and domestic, so there’s another portion of the pot that doesn’t help the local population. I’d also argue that a large portion of local shareholders belong to the middle-upper class and up, which offers little support to the lower class.

Furthermore, you and I have almost no say in where or how a corporation is spending its money (unless you own 15% of its shares). As I stated before, a corporation owes the general public nothing and they exercise that right. Government, for all its faults (and there are MANY), is responsible to the public. The political system is a mess; it’s more about doing what is required for re-election than what is required for the greater, long-term good. But we can vote, petition, and challenge the government in a way we can’t with corporations. Let me be clear that I’m not arguing for more power to be handed to the government, I’m arguing against power being shifted from the government to corporations (which is what removing corporate tax would do). Better the devil you have some control over than the devil you don’t.

This also speaks to your question of whether corporations or the government will use capital more “efficiently”. This is a really interesting question because the answer depends on what you consider to be “efficiently”. In terms of pure dollars and cents, I’d be hard pressed to argue with you. However, that’s not what I consider to be the most important “efficiency” metric. My “efficiency” metric would be in terms of greater societal good. Yes, there is an economic element to well-fair but the emphasis is more evenly distributed amongst the socio-economic classes. For me, the government is better suited at providing greater societal good.

As to the ad hominine attack, I apologize if it was offensive. However, I think it raises an interesting point about how we perceive information and come to conclusions based on our world view. It could be argued that my view on public policy issues and CAGW was shaped by some sort of “white saviour complex” (of course, I’d argue against that). The point is we have biases that affect us in ways we aren’t always aware of. There is an interesting study that I read that stated that two people, with differing views, when given the same set of (rather inconclusive) information/data actually become more polarized instead of less. We use our previous biases to warp our conclusions such that we reinforce our viewpoint.

It may be an oversimplification but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that a large percentage (not all) people, who are not experts in the field, would remain on the same side of the fence when debating CAGW, social services, healthcare, political parties, etc. The latter three are all political but the first should not be. It has become that way, which is my point; the general public has allowed our political/world view bias to infiltrate its conclusions to the CAGW information/data we read (both sides).

If there is one institution that is best at removing its biases from the conclusions it draws, it’s the scientific community. It is ruthlessly skeptical and there is as much praise given over disproving a theory than proving one. Furthermore, having your theory/calculations/research shown to be bogus is a pretty career limiting event, so there is pressure to be as honest and thorough as possible. If independent lines of research all point to the same conclusion, the theory gains credibility. Arguments from authority don’t count. The fact that the IPCC agrees with the CAGW theory doesn’t matter, the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists say, based on their independent research, they agree with the CAGW does give it credibility. The scientific community and the peer review process aren’t infallible or immune to bias but I believe it is a heck of a lot less prone to political or world view bias than bloggers at WUWT.

 

[TenPenny]

The old 'corporations shouldn't pay taxes' line brings up this suggestion: corporations should not have to pay employees' salaries, because in the end, the customers pay them. So all employees of 'corporations' should have to collect salaries from whoever the customers are, unless those entities are corporations, in which case they'd have to follow the trail.

And what about rent on offices? What about office supplies?

It's exactly the same logic and reasoning used to suggest corporate taxes should be removed.

 

[TenPenny]

"Corporations must hold the well being of their shareholders above the well being of the community as a whole or its employees.
Yes, which is why the board is far more likely to direct that money back to investors rather than increasing executive pay. In other words, reducing corporate profits will increase return on investments, thus putting more working capital into the economy."

Indeed, just as the Wall St firms didn't pay out bonuses while going bankrupt and needing government support, yes, we all know that dividends are the highest priority.

Sure, you guys can believe that if you wish, but I can read annual reports, and I do that frequently.

 

[TGS4]

A (fairly long, but very interesting nevertheless) article about social psychology, peer review and "science" in general. Oh ya, and a heaping pile of fraud...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/m...dacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

If there is one institution that is best at removing its biases from the conclusions it draws, it’s the scientific community. It is ruthlessly skeptical and there is as much praise given over disproving a theory than proving one.

Sorry rconnor, science is practiced by humans. Nice try, though. Read the article.

Furthermore, having your theory/calculations/research shown to be bogus is a pretty career limiting event, so there is pressure to be as honest and thorough as possible. If independent lines of research all point to the same conclusion, the theory gains credibility.

Unless your theory is for catastrophe 25-100 years in the future. The smart CAWG "scientists" prognosticate catastrophe far enough in the future that they will be retired comfortably. Then, there is pressure to conform to the hypothesis that will result in the greatest grant monies in the near-term.

... the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists say, based on their independent research, they agree with the CAGW does give it credibility.

Seriously, how many of them have been tasked with disproving the hypothesis of CAWG? Do you think that all of these paleoclimastrologists would be getting multi-million dollar grants is they didn't show "hockey-sticks"? Maybe the non-"hockey-stick" work isn't being published. The latest paper by Marcott et al wasn't a "hockey-stick" in Marcott's Ph.D. thesis - but after peer-review became a statistical nightmare that produced a - surprise - "hockey-stick".

So, to bring this thread back to the OP's title - what is the divergence between hypothesis and reality that would invalidate the hypothesis?

 

[rb1957]

i'll assume that CAGW means Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and not Citizens Against Government Waste ...

though one could be mistaken given how this thread has been hi-jacked by a tax issues.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

"Hijacked on to tax issues" is an interesting concept. There are many of us "Deniers" (sound bytes are so much easier with labels) that have contended for many years that the whole "Global Warming", "Catastrophic Climate Change", "AGW", "CAGW" religion is more about wealth redistribution than about the environment or the poor Pacific Islanders whose ancestral homeland is going to be underwater by 2001 (oh sorry, that prediction passed unfulfilled so now they'll lose their homeland in 2010, whoops, in 2020). My point is that it is impossible to separate the AGW discussion from economic discussions.

This thread has explored more facets of the discussion than we usually do, but it is all the same discussion--proponents of the AGW religion want developed nations to stop putting "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere, but don't care that the vast majority of those gases come from evaporation of water, natural biological events (such as exhaling air), and emerging economies that are exempt from the Draconian controls that have been recommended. There is no way to tax the ocean to get it to evaporate less so that is not a problem. There is no way to tax termites to stop them from passing gas so that is OK. We can tax industry in Australia and Western Europe to force them to reduce their minuscule exhaust stream so governments do impose those taxes.

Finally, the "science". For the last 20 years or so the only way to get "climate science" funded is to bow to the alter of AGW. If your research direction leads to question the AGW hypotheses then you don't get funded or published and you have difficulty making your house payments. If you change your tune and "discover" that your data that indicated that atmospheric CO2 was a result of warming instead of a cause of warming was wrong (by ignoring 30% of the data points) then you suddenly are back in the fold and vacations are back in your schedule.

Tenpenny,
When I was writing that snarky comment about you living simply in a studio so you could give more to the indigent poor I realized that I was doing exactly what I abhor, but was not able to stop myself from including what seemed to me to be an interesting phrase. I shouldn't have done it and I am sorry. Striving for repeatable sound bytes and quotable phrases is just too human a failing and is not limited to any particular side in this discussion.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

The science so far points to a consensus about warming.
But some say the scientists are biased. If so where are the credible
scientific studies that show MMGW to be much less serious??
Not funded by the gov you say ??
Well private money spends just as well, why don't the big players
spend money and get credible work completed that exposes the weakness that
every armchair scientist just knows to be true??

If corporations don't pay taxes why do they object to the tax rates so much
and move off shore?

 

[77JQX]

Much of this discussion seems to be centered around what to me are two different questions: (1) Is global warming happening? and (2) If so, what should be done about it? Specifically, those who deny the first seem to be so moved by the proposed answers to the latter.

But I have a different question to all you smart and thoughtful people. If global warming is happening, and for whatever reason nothing effectivly stops it, how would one profit from it?

 

[SnTMan]

My only point is that while taxes are just another business expense, many people don't seem to realize it. It often seems to me the discussion, especially for the Exxon/Mobils of the world, is that taxes are form of punishment incurred for making a profit. Ths opinion assumes that, somehow, the affected company pays these taxes sort of unexpectedly, thereby reducing those profits to something more "just". No, its an expense, they pass it along. Nobody spends any meaningful amount of time discussing what a company "ought" to pay for materials, energy, labor or paparclips. Just taxes. I may be kind of warped on this, my wife is an accountant

Regards,

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

And I certaiinly did not mean to imply that I know what tax policy ought to be. Other than, maybe, simple.

 

[TGS4]

The science so far points to a consensus about warming

That there has been some warming from the end of the Little Ice Age until today, with increases and decreases along the way - yup, the unaltered instrumental record is pretty clear on that. The increase may be close to 0.7°C.

You didn't ask the right question - why. See, that's the money question. That's what everyone is getting riled up about. Is it due solely to man's release of CO2? Is due solely to natural causes? Is it a bit of both?

Why is this question important? Because of what may happen in the future. If it's 100% natural, then whatever happens, we're along for the ride and can't do a damn thing about it. If it's 100% man-made, and we can agree that warming is "bad" and that the magnitude of the future warming is "bad", then something could conceivably be done.

So, where do we stand on the money question? Other than having some computer simulations whose output indicate that the warming post 1970 is man-made, we haven't made any progress in the last 10 years. Are there any experiments that can be done? None full-scale . So, we are left with prior predictions and comparing of those predictions to reality. Even the most optimistic (highest reduction in CO2 output) scenario indicated that warming would continue post-2000 as it did from 1970 to 2000. The most pessimistic (continued increase in CO2 output) scenario indicated accelerating warming. The reality: depending on the metric, no warming at all in 13-17 years. So, obviously the simulations missed something. Was that something big, little, or something in between? Dunno, but it's a pretty good swing-and-a-miss.

So, can we say that the warming post-Little Ice Age was 100% man-made? No.

Can we say that the warming post-Little Ice was 100% natural? Again, no. We don't know the drivers of climate change - only that it changes, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly, but rarely predictably.

Where does that leave us? Somewhere in the middle. What many people are objecting to is the foregone conclusion that: A) all of the recent warming is 100% man-made, B) this warming is "bad" and that future warming will be "bad", and C) something can be done. If you don't have A), perhaps even completely disagree with B), you will get quite up in arms about C).

zdas04 - thanks for manning-up and apologizing. You were wrong, admitted it and apologized.

 

[OHIOMatt]

I have avoided this topic intentionally on this forum for quite some time now. Apparently, I am in a very select minority of people. I do not know if AGW is happening. I read articles both supporting it and denying it. What I do know, is that neither side has made a convincing argument to me.

I started hearing about the greenhouse effect when I was about 15 years old. I am now 37. The predictions of global doom that I heard as a 15 year old have not panned out.

I find it disheartening that scientist (on both sides) can make their case, with computer models being the only form of experimentation performed. I think that I read something at one point in time, that for something to be accepted as a scientific certainty, you had to have predictable, repeatable results.

Can anyone give me an example of a predicted outcome from the last 22 years that has actually happened? Can anyone explain the term "unprecedented warming" (it seems that the temperatures had to increase rapidly and significantly to melt the glacier that used to be near my current location).

This issue has taken on such a life, that science is being forsaken.

 

[zdas04]

SnTMan,
The only reason I talk about corporate taxes so often is that they are SO stupid. First, tax rate is a factor in a corporation deciding where to site facilities that employ people. Second, money that the government collects from corporate taxes is about 1/3 less than they would collect if the taxes were eliminated (and the income people derive from the re-purposed funds were taxed as today), but by eliminating them Congress would lose a tool to influence market behaviors so Congress feels that the reduction in revenue is justified by the increase in influence.

Corporations are far from perfect. Just not quite as far from perfect as Government. Eliminating the corporate income tax would certainly lead to actions by specific corporations that are not in the public interest. But then money in the hands of the Federal Government also leads to actions that are not in the public interest. Which is better? Well, we have mechanisms in place to effectively prosecute corporate officers who break the law in the name of their corporation. Those mechanisms are much less effective when directed at government employees.

Capitalism is messy. A Republic is a messy way to run a country. Both of these things are far less messy than the alternatives.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[zdas04]

I work in Oil & Gas. I live at 5,300 ft elevation. Over geologic time, my home site has been under the ocean 5 times. No one "caused" those dramatic climate changes. The climate is changing. The climate has always changed. The climate will always change. Sometimes it will change quickly. Sometimes it will change slowly. Organisms that can adapt to the change will. Organisms that cannot adapt to the change will die out. The absolute best that mankind can do is to try to minimize the amount we crap in our own nest (i.e., don't pollute rivers, keep toxic chemicals out of aquifers, minimize the BTEX, VOC, and ash we put into the air). Beyond that is simply hubris.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

Some where we went off on several different tangents, but from a quote from Milton Fredman (I know I won't get this exact), "we always talk about economic inequity, but we never talk about intenlectual inequity. Why is that? It is because we don't know how to make it equatible".

This being said, and we can verify that not all humans have the same intenlect, that some humans will do better than others. Would it not be better to bring all humans up in level than bring the smarter ones down?

If humans are falable, and can be corrupted, why do we trust any of them? Maybe be because we have to. So if goverment and corporations are made up by humans, can we expect them to be better than the humans in general?

So why do we trust either, and not put more trust in non-profits that serive the public? After all the non-profits are much better at feeding people than the goverment is. Do we hear of much cheeting in the soup lines?

 

[KENAT]

Cranky, you have an unrealistically rosy view of non profits I'm afraid. My wife has been associated with the non profit field off and on throughout her career and has seen plenty of dubious behaviour including corruption, coercian etc.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​