Global Warming News

[FallbrookFarmer]

AH HA! I knew you were a closet pinko Francophile!

Oui Monsieur, I will admit I am fond of Sauternes,
but if the're out of the good stuff, I'll settle for a Abbaye des Rocs.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Always love when this topic comes up! Should we start a pool as to how long the thread lasts before getting closed down?

IMHO, scientists are as reliable as weathermen. Not to mention that a theory, some ego and some $$$ and good PR can help make any idea plausible. I mean even in my lifetime dinosaurs went from being reptiles to birds, Pluto is no longer a planet, and the speed of light may not be constant.

Don't get me wrong, I think the scientific method is a wonderful thing and the things discovered can be nothing short of amazing - but to think we understand this universe around us with any degree of certainty - pure ego.

The scariest part to me is that way folks subscribe to one theory or another and vehemently defend it as fact, and of course, turn it into a "cause" - especially when it comes to the doom of the world.

Chicken Little has existed for millennia and somehow mankind still seems to plod on

So, Did you win?

 

[Loren49]

Gentlemen,
When you imply I am a "socialist/Marxist" it is in a totally different category than using the terms rich, big government, big oil, etc.. The latter terms appear in print and use on a regular basis and often are not trying to imply a negative slant. Just go up to someone and call them one of these and see which gets the reaction you're looking for. There are many labels that would also bother you but I'm not going there because I only know a few of your views. Besides it would accomplish nothing.

Concerning your quote that you feel I would like, i.e. that "socialism/communism" is the way to go is again untrue, not correct, inflammatory, ignorant, abusive, arrogant. There's no need to explain my view to you but its way closer to free market and private ownership than anything else. I have worked hard for and earned what I have. I'm pretty possessive of my land, home and property, my 3 sheep, my Kioti, my maple trees that I will soon be tapping,etc.. I simply have the view that we should provide preventative health care for all. Are all countries who do this "socialist/Marxist" regime? I know we don't agree on this and have probably exhausted much possibility of changing each others minds. Lets be civil and go on. I believe you probably would find I was a good neighbor and I would probably find the same of you. Plus we're all on this forum for some common reasons.

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Sorry: this is off topic,

Just a short ps: I spent a couple hours this morning building a movable lambing pen. The good part today is that we have bright sun so even though I used a table saw and skill saw for a while, along with a "salamander heater", my batteries are already at full charge. We have 2 ewes and a ram (katahdin hair sheep) and will have our first lambing in about a month (I think). Down to 0F last night but back up to 16F. Nice part about the farming I do now is that I'm not worried about a profit, just that I don't spend too much. Soon I'll be cutting a few Hemlock logs and sawing out some lumber with my neighbor's portable mill. (planning to build a small timber frame barn) Life is good.

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Gentlemen,
When you imply I am a "socialist/Marxist" it is in a totally different category than using the terms rich, big government, big oil, etc.. The latter terms appear in print and use on a regular basis and often are not trying to imply a negative slant. Just go up to someone and call them one of these and see which gets the reaction you're looking for. There are many labels that would also bother you but I'm not going there because I only know a few of your views. Besides it would accomplish nothing.

Concerning your quote that you feel I would like, i.e. that "socialism/communism" is the way to go is again untrue, not correct, inflammatory, ignorant, abusive, arrogant. There's no need to explain my view to you but its way closer to free market and private ownership than anything else. I have worked hard for and earned what I have. I'm pretty possessive of my land, home and property, my 3 sheep, my Kioti, my maple trees that I will soon be tapping,etc.. I simply have the view that we should provide preventative health care for all. Are all countries who do this "socialist/Marxist" regime? I know we don't agree on this and have probably exhausted much possibility of changing each others minds. Lets be civil and go on. I believe you probably would find I was a good neighbor and I would probably find the same of you. Plus we're all on this forum for some common reasons.

Loren

Me, I'm just here for the booze recommendations.
And for the record, I didn't call you a marxist,
I accused of you of being a liberal, Is that worse?
C'mon Loren get a giggle.
Any day that you wake up on this side of the turf, is a good one.
And my bet that is the thread peters out at about 846

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer: Humor is better Just have to leave you with a possible dilemma: I've carried modest debt at times though I've been basically debt free since 1982. For the past 28 years my wife and I have spent less each year than we made. (may have slipped a little from 89-91 while we had 2 sons in high school/college while I earned my BA Degree and was not working during school year) Wife worked full time as a nurse so we could do this. I believe this kind of financial management fits neither the conservative or liberal politicians. I certainly don't agree with some liberal politics. In education I'm more on the conservative side. (it's ok to say you're failing-don't know how many times I said to a student "if you were working for me, I would have fired you a long time ago"-even got scolded by a couple parents for hurting "self esteem" That said, call me a liberal anytime you'd like.

Loren

 

[txdon]

Last sumer in central Texas it was over 100 degrees for over 60 days setting records. I actually started to believe there might be something to this man made global warming. But then in December we had 3 days of below freezing weather.

I don't have to look at glaciers or e-mails, when the people from Michigan do not come to Texas during the winter I might review this topic again.

 

[keegs]

More revisionist claptrap. Toss around a couple percentages to cloud the issue. CBO always analyzes a static model and never thinks changing policy will change behavior.

Simple Concept

Raise taxes on an activity/product = Less Activity and sales of product.
Lower taxes on an activity/product = More activity and sales of product.

Lower tax rates = more revenue. Congress always spends it and more which explains the deficits going up.

I'm done with this. You are not interested in facts.

Mike,

Does the government take your taxes and put them in a mattress or does the goverment take your taxes and spend them on goods and services?

I'm not advocating higher taxes, don't get me wrong. But at the tax levels we're at, whether you spend the money or the government speds the money is almost irrelevant in terms of impact on GDP.

On the other hand, if government obligations don't meet revenue, the government borrows with interest. The size of government debt and the amount it borrows typically affects interest rates for the private and public sectors of the economy. Heavy government borrowing and debt levels can slow GDP growth.

Politicians with slogans about tax cuts paying for themselves are no different than politicians that tell you they'll fix your teeth for free. It's never free...the money's coming from somebody.

 

[MikePA]

Politicians with slogans about tax cuts paying for themselves are no different than politicians that tell you they'll fix your teeth for free. It's never free...the money's coming from somebody.

It's got nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what politicians say.

Lowering tax rates increases revenue. This is a FACT, not a slogan or a political empty promise.

In the 60s and 80s when rates were cut, federal revenue went up.

Only people whose purpose is to deceive use a static model to evaluate tax rate changes which results in the incorrect conclusion that cutting rates lowers revenue, it didn't and doesn't. It's also why tax rate increases never generate the revenue politicians and the CBO project and it's why the PAYGO idea is rubbish.

 

[keegs]

It's got nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what politicians say.

Lowering tax rates increases revenue. This is a FACT, not a slogan or a political empty promise.

In the 60s and 80s when rates were cut, federal revenue went up.

Only people whose purpose is to deceive use a static model to evaluate tax rate changes which results in the incorrect conclusion that cutting rates lowers revenue, it didn't and doesn't. It's also why tax rate increases never generate the revenue politicians and the CBO project and it's why the PAYGO idea is rubbish.

In a weak economy and in the short-term tax cuts provide a stimulative economic effect. But the cuts must ultimately be balanced with a reduction in spending to avoid increasing debt. Left unchecked, debt will slow the economy because it must eventually be paid off.

In fact it's where we are right now. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts each doubled the national debt, the later at a time in our history when everyone was aware that government entitlement obligations were about to significantly increase.

Reagan at least had the common sense to raise the payroll tax, although that increase fell largely on the middle class.

If there's an agenda here Mike, it's claiming "tax cuts pay for themselves" and using the resulting debt as a strategy for eliminating entitlements.

 

[Pilot]

The Reagan / Bush tax cuts didn't double the national debt--as was mentioned previously, when the tax rates went down, revenue went up. People started putting their money into productive uses.

I remember before the Reagan tax cuts a cousin was investing in railroad cars which were sitting on sidings because the economy was in the tank. The investment tax credit was paying for the investment in this unproductive use of his money. Someone else was buying "master records"; an original hit recording from which copies were made, but the hit had come and gone. He could put it on his wall and show people that he owned the hit, "Hound Dog" or whatever. A tax credit isn't a deduction; a credit comes off the top, a dollar "invested" gives you a dollar off your declared income; so the government lets you choose how to waste taxpayer money instead of Washington deciding how to waste it. Either way, it was wasted. Reagan did away with the investment tax credit along with lowering tax rates. At that point, if you were going to invest money and get a tax benefit, the investment had to be productive, investments began to mean something and the economy recovered.

The increased spending is what doubled the debt. Reagan spent more on defense and congress spent more on social programs--you give me what I want & I'll give you what you want and they both spent us into a higher debt. Ultimately, the increased defense spending was a good investment as it put the Soviets into an arms race their economy couldn't support, the system collapsed and the cold war ended, allowing us to start paying down the national debt for a few years. I doubt that much of what congress wanted to spend was a good investment.

 

[Loren49]

Can't help myself- if economics were that simple ( i.e. less taxes equals more business and therefore more tax revenue) then why are there any economics books larger than 1 page? Why do they offer B.A./M.A./ and Phd Degrees in economics. And why did I waste the time and money on micro-economics in college.
My only point is that it's not that simple and it is certainly debatable.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

And why did I waste the time and money on micro-economics in college.

Now I understand. Economics are way too complicated for the common folks. Nope, gotta have a Harvard MBA to understand it. Maybe the Wharton School of Business. Lower tax rates and revenue goes up. No, no, no. It's not that simple. Look at my bookshelf. Please go away serf, the elites are discussing your future. Economic problems in the EU? In Spain? A country with socialized medicine and a focus on green energy? How can this be? Who will the elites point to in Europe now. Who should we emulate? Why we are told green energy will create jobs and socialized medicine will not just be revenue neutral it will result in revenue to the treasury. Just like Spain. Oh glory be, where would we be without people with MBAs and economic degrees? Where would we be? I shudder to think. I'll leave this thread now. Not enough degrees. I'll see if Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams are TBN members. If so, perhaps they could join the discussion.

 

[Loren49]

FYI-my one course was at a Communiy College - not much elite about it. Wanna see the calluses on my hands from working in retirement? Not much above serfdom about me but think what you'd like.
Let me try again - the whole tax - business - government revenue question is complex. I admit that there are many who have a much better grasp of it than I possess. I have debated and dissagreed with your premise. I have not attacked you as far as I know. I gave an example earlier, in the extreem case in either direction (0% tax vs 100%tax) there is a problem with government revenue. Now by logic there must be an optimum tax rate somewhere in between that maximizes government revenue. My point is lower is not always better. Hope my logic is clear. I'm confident the best rate is also a moving tarket depending on many other factors.

Not trying to be personal even when I feel attacked for my thoughts,
Loren

 

[keegs]

Now I understand. Economics are way too complicated for the common folks. Nope, gotta have a Harvard MBA to understand it. Maybe the Wharton School of Business. Lower tax rates and revenue goes up. No, no, no. It's not that simple. Look at my bookshelf. Please go away serf, the elites are discussing your future. Economic problems in the EU? In Spain? A country with socialized medicine and a focus on green energy? How can this be? Who will the elites point to in Europe now. Who should we emulate? Why we are told green energy will create jobs and socialized medicine will not just be revenue neutral it will result in revenue to the treasury. Just like Spain. Oh glory be, where would we be without people with MBAs and economic degrees? Where would we be? I shudder to think.

Mike,

You don't need a degree to use google.

On a per capita basis, Spain spends about a third of what the US spends on health care. Its national debt is about 40% of GDP ours is about 67%.

Want an example of a country that really has it's fiscal house in order, look at Canada.

 

[keegs]

The Reagan / Bush tax cuts didn't double the national debt--as was mentioned previously, when the tax rates went down, revenue went up. People started putting their money into productive uses.

I remember before the Reagan tax cuts a cousin was investing in railroad cars which were sitting on sidings because the economy was in the tank. The investment tax credit was paying for the investment in this unproductive use of his money. Someone else was buying "master records"; an original hit recording from which copies were made, but the hit had come and gone. He could put it on his wall and show people that he owned the hit, "Hound Dog" or whatever. A tax credit isn't a deduction; a credit comes off the top, a dollar "invested" gives you a dollar off your declared income; so the government lets you choose how to waste taxpayer money instead of Washington deciding how to waste it. Either way, it was wasted. Reagan did away with the investment tax credit along with lowering tax rates. At that point, if you were going to invest money and get a tax benefit, the investment had to be productive, investments began to mean something and the economy recovered.

The increased spending is what doubled the debt. Reagan spent more on defense and congress spent more on social programs--you give me what I want & I'll give you what you want and they both spent us into a higher debt. Ultimately, the increased defense spending was a good investment as it put the Soviets into an arms race their economy couldn't support, the system collapsed and the cold war ended, allowing us to start paying down the national debt for a few years. I doubt that much of what congress wanted to spend was a good investment.

Pilot,

You're right, it was a combination of tax cuts and spending increases during the Bush and Reagan administrations that doubled the national debt. GHW Bush referred to such fiscal policy as voo-doo economics.

I won't start another argument about whether Reagan brought down the Soviet Union but suffice it to say, such claims are highly speculative.

There isn't a reputable economist or economic reference that subscribes to the notion that over the mid to long term, tax cuts generate more revenue or economic growth than if they otherwise had not been made.

Again, what the cuts do is increase public debt which has to be paid back. Bond payments to foreign lenders slows economic growth in the US.

 

[MikePA]

FYI-my one course was at a Communiy College - not much elite about it. Wanna see the calluses on my hands from working in retirement? Not much above serfdom about me but think what you'd like.
Let me try again - the whole tax - business - government revenue question is complex. I admit that there are many who have a much better grasp of it than I possess. I have debated and dissagreed with your premise. I have not attacked you as far as I know. I gave an example earlier, in the extreem case in either direction (0% tax vs 100%tax) there is a problem with government revenue. Now by logic there must be an optimum tax rate somewhere in between that maximizes government revenue. My point is lower is not always better. Hope my logic is clear. I'm confident the best rate is also a moving tarket depending on many other factors.

Not trying to be personal even when I feel attacked for my thoughts,
Loren

Attacked? You brought up books, degrees and education, I didn't. Good grief.

Yes, there's an optimum rate and anyone who wanted the economy to turn around would lower rates to see what happens. Heck, if they just say no tax hikes for 3 years, things would turn around. What business in their right mind would expand not knowing if the federal or state government will reach into their pockets and take even more money to feed the bottomless pit that is government? A $5,000 tax credit for hiring someone could have only been thought of by someone who doesn't have a clue, but I bet they have a lot of degrees. Let Bush tax cuts lapse. Eliminate or severely restrict charitable contributions. Yep, that'll bring the economy around. No, all designed to grow government and get more people looking to government for sustenance.

We will never agree.

I'm going back to talk tractors.

 

[Loren49]

Mike Pa,
I agree - lets talk tractors. I'm sorry you felt I implied that anyone had to be a scholar in that area to make a statement. I was trying to emphasize that its a complex field. I'm certainly just an opinionated amateur.
Springs getting closer so time to enjoy the new Kioti and loader, what a luxury - lived with the old Farmall A for 25 years.

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Ah, now to get back to the thread topic, here are 2 items:

From the Times Online (Times of London, I believe):

"A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility."

"Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCCç—´ 2007 benchmark report on global warming."

"The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general."

"This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCCç—´ climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC's´ retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035."

So it's taken this long for pseudoscience in the 2007 IPCC report to come out. Just as I said in a much earlier post, no one reads the 2558 page IPCC report, just the executive summary and another 83 page summary, the name of which I have forgotten. And they all said, "Gee, we'd better do something about this" and talked about cap and trade and other drastic measures, which even if all were adopted wouldn't reduce global warming by more than 1/2 deg. C by 2100. I don't know if we have human caused global warming or not, and no one else does either, because the science isn't there yet. It's time to throw out the IPCC and everyone involved with writing their report and appoint new people with a reputation for integrity, with skeptics and advocates together to evaluate the science, identify the shortcomings where more research is needed and award research grants impartially, regardless of where the results might lead.

And we also need to admit that there are aspects of global warming that can help the planet so mankind can make a balanced judgment of what to do about it. Of course that won't happen because there will be politicians and advocacy groups involved, but at least by starting over we might get a better knowledge base.

 

[dcyrilc]

It would be nice if Eddie could acknowledge that windpower has a real, working place in the energy arena, I gave a good reference to check out. Nothing hypothetical about it. You can see 'em and touch 'em. But, if he wishes to believe that windpower is only just another taxpayer robbing scam that doesn't work, it's a free country. Those turbines will be producing megawatts of power whether Eddie believes in them or not. It does work, its working around the globe. Even in China they are implementing wind power as fast as possible. There are several core reasons it is an attractive energy resource.

Eddie said windmill technology is not good enough to justify having them, I would have to call that a fib. Applying Eddie's standards to himself, then I guess I can't believe anything Eddie has ever said. And now that he's lost my trust, I can't believe anything he ever will say.
Dave.

Dave,
I still have alot of reading to catch up to current posts, but I wanted to comment on this.

A couple of years back, we were invited to tour a local wind farm by the engineer who designed and oversaw the build of it for the local power company. He is a neighbor & carpool partner for our supervisor. One thing I found interesting was when he explained the the expected revenues from the wind farm would take ten years longer than the life of the equipment to pay for it. Local regulations require the use of alternative forms of energy for a percentage of their power production so they were installing several wind farms and, I belive, two solar sites even though they would loose money in doing so.

I was going to post pix, but it looks like they are all on my work computer.