|30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming,Page 4 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)|
|Just for fun, I went to Yahoo Finance and calculated some effective tax rates for a few of America's larger corporations. All figures were caculated using the income tax expense divided by the income before tax, taken directly from their 2008 income statements. Any negative percentage signafies a company that operated at a loss, but still paid income tax.|
G.E. (GE) = 5.5%
Wal-Mart (WMT) = 34.2%
Ford Motor Corp. (F) = -0.04%
McDonalds (MCD) = 30%
Exxon (XOM) = 44.7%
Boeing (BA) = 33.6%
Halliburton (HAL) = 38.3%
Altria (MO) = 35.5%
Northrop Grumman (NOC) = -248% (but was 32.8% in 2007)
And for some reason the parent company of Fox News (NWSA) had a negative tax expense of $2,229,000,000. I don't know if this was because of overpayment in the past, or if the government just wanted to give them two billion dollars.
It seems 35% is the average for a profitable company, but this is not the whole story.
Corporate tax accountants make crazy cash for a reason. Their job is to avoid or delay paying taxes (tax avoidance is the legal counterpart to tax evasion). They can do this through a variety of methods, they can transfer revenues and expenses, delay earnings, speed up expenses and a whole host of other tools used to reduce a companies tax liabilities, this is known as tax planning.
So American corporations do have a disadvantage when it comes to tax rate, they more then make up for it with greater ability to reduce taxable income. American corporations also recieve huge tax credits, these tax credits would make any company look like they are paying a higher tax rate than the reality.
|30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming,|
Posted: 1/13/2010 2:14:59 PM
Daily record high temperatures
There was a time when you could get the exact location of all temperature recording stations in the U.S. The page was taken down when people started visiting the sites to check out whether the thermometers were placed correctly. The majority were placed strategically to record the highest possible temps. You know... On or exceedingly close to the tarmac at airports. On the roofs of buildings. Anywhere where the ambient temp would be affected by it's immediate surroundings... Artificially. Ever noticed that the temp. at the airport is always higher than the temp. recorded by your car or home thermometer?
|30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming,|
Posted: 1/22/2010 1:26:55 AM
The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”
The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, already under fire over a separate scandal involving hacked e-mails last year.
The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water supplies during the dry seasons.
It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.
“I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast,” he said. “I have never written 2035 in any of my research papers or reports.” Professor Hasnain works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the climate change panel.
Dr Pachauri has defended the panel’s work, while trying to distance himself from Professor Hasnain by saying that the latter was not working at the institute in 1999: “We slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this Earth.”
Professor Hasnain confirmed that he had given an interview to Fred Pearce, of New Scientist, when he was still working for Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1999. “I said that small glaciers in the eastern and central Himalaya are declining at an alarming rate and in the next 40-50 years they may lose substantial mass,” he said. “That means they will shrink in area and mass. To which the journalist has assigned a date and reported it in his own way.” Mr Pearce was not immediately available for comment.
Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges including the Himalayas. “This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment,” it said.
The scandal threatens to undermine the panel’s credibility as it begins the marathon process of drafting its Fifth Assessment Reports, which are due out in 2013-14. Georg Kaser, a leading Austrian glaciologist who contributed to the 2007 report, described the glacier mistake as huge and said that he had warned colleagues about it months before publication.
The error is also now being exploited by climate sceptics, many of whom are convinced that stolen e-mail exchanges last year revealed a conspiracy to exaggerate the evidence supporting global warming.
Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, said on Tuesday the scandal vindicated his position that there was no proof that Himalayan glaciers were melting abnormally fast. “The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,” he said.
Monitoring Himalayan glaciers is extremely difficult because most of them lie in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the word at an altitude of more than 5,000 metres (16,000ft).
Most studies until now have therefore been based necessarily on a mixture of outdated and incomplete data, satellite imagery, photography, and anecdotal evidence.
Posted: 1/22/2010 10:18:51 AM
|Great... yet another flawed prediction and yet another flawed Nobel Peace Prize. Do you think they will give it back?|
Posted: 1/29/2010 1:06:39 PM
Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.
Posted: 2/4/2010 8:21:13 AM
|No need to when they just keep 'em coming.|
Scare tactics in convincing the Chinese that they will have zero water to consume in 20 years.
From The Times
January 30, 2010
Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
* UN's rogue glacier claim 'just one page in report'
* UN climate chief 'got grants through bogus claims'
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.
Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.
Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.
“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Last line in my opinion the epitome of motivation -
"Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds."
Kinda like selling snake oil.
Posted: 2/4/2010 11:44:59 AM
It looks like the people at Obama's SOTU speech were glad he brought up Climate. It seems to have gotten a really good chuckle, starting with his VP and Peloski. your proof link has nothing to do with the speech,nada,zippo.As for your link so what if he made an error on amount of states he visited,you of course have probably never made a mistake as your link here shows,stop expecting people to live up to a god like perfect specimen.
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)Odd I read nothing that was not anything but serious,he has always been serious and he has always believed the overwhelming evidence the Global warming exists as do the vast majority of us,it is ones like you that seem to doubt the proof and argue everything thing Obama does or says,it "seems" !
Posted: 2/4/2010 4:50:58 PM
Here is the video part of Obama talking about climate change...and getting a resounding round of laughter starting with the two behind him; Binden and Peloski. Are you kidding us,I watched your video and I watched the whole address,it was being a tad sarcastic because half the room, the republicans, were sitting stone faced and as you see when he and the others looked to their right as they are thats where the republicans are sitting,the dems are in front of them and to their left.Look you already admitted you spent the whole address counting how many times he said "I".Your purpose of watching the speech was to see how many times he used his teleprompter,how many "I"s he used and hope to catch him at a lie or any mistake of the English language,from what you state now I assume you read the speech not watched it,thats how you were able to count the meaningless I's .After all if he has to lead us,if he has to take charge ,if he has to make the hard choices for the country,if he have to direct us, then your going to hear a heck of a lot of I's .
If you look at the text of Obama's speech I dont think that what he said was meant as a joke.
It "seems" once again your dead wrong and could not get anymore trivial and petty as you do this time,it "seems"
Posted: 2/4/2010 5:00:16 PM
|correction,Obama facing the room in the SOTU means if he looked to his LEFT as he did during laughter in the video he was looking at the republicans,the Dems and military and judges sat in front of him and to HIS right.|
Posted: 2/4/2010 9:13:22 PM
Like the Chinese are so ignorant?
Hey I thought we were all supposed to blindly believe these leeches, I mean so called scientists.
But not the Indians.
India forms new climate change body
India has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
Posted: 2/9/2010 3:08:36 PM
Maybe this is why everyone was laughing so hard during Obama's serious comments about global warming..... You need to educate yourself,its common knowledge that global warming amplify's the weather,that's why the studies show not so much an increse of hurricanes just that they are double to strength,places that get high waters are turning into yearly floods now,places that snowed a little now get snow storms during a bad time,places that are slight on rain now get yearly drought.This is why your seeing such extremes,you need to study your science,rather than just using any ones attempts at humor as your proof or a convenient way to knock Obama as if you think the joker is accurate. As always with you,nice try.
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:45:27 PM
Too bad they don't know the difference between Climate and Weather.......
They're not the only ones; not by a long shot.
Posted: 2/10/2010 7:00:49 AM
|^^^ That may depend upon how this summer is going (in the southern hemisphere). |
Posted: 2/10/2010 7:40:54 AM
Maybe this is why everyone was laughing so hard during Obama's serious comments about global warming....."Seems" the laughing just shows the ignorance of those who think being concerned about global warming is a joke.
People who truly understand the effects of global warming also understand that some of the symptoms of global warming are:
** ... increases in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation (which includes the expansion of subtropical deserts).
** ... warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and is associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice.
And here comes the part that the "Dubya Heads" are no doubt unaware of ... and so they are laughing ... thus demonstrating various degrees of ignorance on the topic:
** ... other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields.
Posted: 2/10/2010 11:25:45 AM
|The ignorance lies in fact that there is nothing extreme going on.|
Only nature at it's finest.
No increase in hurricanes or tornadoes. No glaciers dissapearing in 20 years (you lie). This cold front is natural for an el nino year.
But give us 2 degrees of higher than normal temps during the summer months and Al Gore will be in the headlines every week spouting his propaganda and collecting his billion dollars doing so.
To find Al NOWADAYS you must go to http//www.wherearetheynow/missinginaction.com
Posted: 2/10/2010 3:30:59 PM
|In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names of people who claim to be scientists and who reject the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). The petition was an attempt by the OISM to demonstrate that there are many more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. |
This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report which attributed climate change to human civilization.
The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with expertise in climate and related fields. So the ability to publish a list of over 30,000 scientists who reject the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that climate skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption.
The OISM’s qualifications for being a “scientist” are expansive, What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate
scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people have actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate?
While it’s not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 “scientists” listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.
In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.
However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.
However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.
Still, 13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.
The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.
84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals.
I love it when you act like you have credible info.
Posted: 2/14/2010 8:23:32 PM
|Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995|
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZEzmc22
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Professor Phil Jones
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZEdCLcC
Posted: 2/15/2010 7:07:50 AM
|Its amazing out of tens of thousands of scientists all it takes is a lone wolf to change the facts away from research info of thousands.Those fellows a few months back that had fudged their data,think there was 3 or 4 of them swayed half this country,citizens always referred to it as if the entire science community had faked it.. Why on earth listen to the vast majority and even the proof in front of your face as with all the states except Hawaii snowing,or Polar ice caps melting,when you can otherwise put all your faith in the half dozen bad boy scientists sent to the principals office.|
It never does take much to sway a country,sometimes just takes one person,Hitler ran a hate the Jews campaign over like three or four years then was able to successfully round them all up as all his brainwashed neighbors watched.I actually watched this same nonsense here as certain citizens shouted Obamas going to kill your grandmother and Obamas going to adversely sway your children giving a school pep talk,tens or hundreds of thousands were swayed by such nonsensical spewing.
One would think it would take 3 million saying no there is GW and at least 2 million somewhat climate related scientists saying no its man made for people to jump sides,yet that's not even close to reality,bet if just Chevron,Mobil,Chase Bank ,and Rush said so(they currently are),third of this country would believe it.
Posted: 2/15/2010 10:27:35 AM
Why is Global warming so politicized? If it is happening and it takes thousands of years etc...why is the Left in such a hurry to further regulate our lives?
Because the argument is that it doesn't takes thousands of years. And if it did it wouldn't matter if its cold this week.
All this is about is control...the Libs will never be satisfied until the Government has complete control of every aspect of our lives from how much sugar we eat to what temperature we set our thermostats.....
Yep, next thing you know they will be controlling your love life on the basis that you have no inherent right to privacy...
Posted: 2/15/2010 11:21:22 AM
Why is Global warming so politicized? If it is happening and it takes thousands of years etc...why is the Left in such a hurry to further regulate our lives?
Um,maybe because what normally takes thousands and tens of thousands of years are now happening in the last few decades.Maybe because with private corporation first in line to lose billions because of global warming they are never going to admit its already happening,and since they are the most vocal and the ones spending the most money on a spin campaign that nothing is happening and the ones leading the "what GW warming campaign" then the government is needed,so if the largest corporations are spending billions to not touch anything,whom else has the power and money to compete,the government,besides the government should protect American citizens from those very few Americans(CEOs and their shareholders) that are the only ones profiting at the cost of our world.
Tar and feathering and running them out of the village would be appropriate for those ones,but I'd fantasize lighting a match to the tar on the way out.Why not, they seem invincible don't they,or do you think your neighbor Arnold and his wife Gloria would have a better chance at regulating this stuff over your government.Your very very naive.This is coming from a guy that prefers less government too.I see no point,the David and Goliath thing was just a imaginative Bible story,in real life Goliath needs to fight another Goliath.
Posted: 2/15/2010 12:43:22 PM
|The interesting thing about this debate is how it's so ''Americacentric". |
If this theory is right, then we best get moving quickly. If it's wrong, we wind up with a cleaner planet.
There's only one logical path.
Posted: 2/15/2010 4:54:30 PM
"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore."
Climate isn't weather.
It's not too surprising that the heartland of corporate control is also the epicenter of disinformation.
Posted: 2/17/2010 7:06:11 AM
those who believe in it base it on some studies that have questionable credibility those opposed discount the studies as being ficticious....those who believe want to believe that they are the majority, they say that thousands of Scientists agree with them ..in all of the Research how many studies have really been done and by whom? It appears that many "Scientists" who agree do so based on studies done by others Once again seems your trying to rewrite the facts,Please read message 178 again ,it gives numbers you cannot dismiss,84% of scientists,which is 8.4 million of them believe GW is man made.Which leaves 1.6 million that believe its not,so even if I squint I cannot see how you think we are not the majority,8.4 million is bigger than 1.6 million right !
Thing I find interesting is that the most influential Climate Researchers were caught changing data and those who Believe totally dismiss this hmmmm could it be that because out of 10 million AAAS scientists were talking 3 friends that were fudging figures,and please show me credible facts that these 3 were the most credible climatologists of our time.You are aware that of the 31,478 scientists against GW petition that only 39 on that petition were actual climatologists.
Seems as once again its you ignoring the numbers and putting your bet on news like 3 of 10 million fudged their numbers.
in all of the Research how many studies have really been done and by whom? It appears that many "Scientists" who agree do so based on studies done by others Yes please,enlighten us and research this for us and tell us of the tens of thousands of research studies done by thousands of schools and groups and individuals worldwide over the decades,please show links.
we are told that we just need to believe have faith etc true,thats exactly what you try to feed us,you tell us to go against all the facts and the majority and have faith the majority is wrong and all the visible and written proof is incorrect.I don't go off fear,hunches,gut feelings and the almighty need to be on the underdog side every time as you,no matter what the thread topic is,just because you changed your profile name doesn't mean you have changed your methodology one iota.
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:39:00 PM
Once again seems your trying to rewrite the facts,Please read message 178 again ,it gives numbers you cannot dismiss,84% of scientists,which is 8.4 million of them believe GW is man made.Which leaves 1.6 million that believe its not,so even if I squint I cannot see how you think we are not the majority,8.4 million is bigger than 1.6 million right !
You are cooking the numbers.
Say your ratios are correct. That is for scientists that are active in the GW movement. There millions of scientists who wish to be no part of the fraud. You make it sound like 84% of all scientists believe. Some for no purposes other that securing billions of dollars in government grants to continue their hoax. Not too many people are giving up six figure incomes nowdays and as has been proven time and time again, people lie (and give acute misinformation). Especially for money and massive power.
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)