Just curious

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

Tariffs is more of a complex animal. Part of the reason for tariffs is too many regulations most often by Democrats increasing costs thus companies are less competitive on the world market.

Yes, if you want American companies to be competitive, you need to do away with the tariffs, keep the corporate tax rate at a reasonable level compared to other countries, and not over-regulate.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by r66

and the Dems also want to tax unrealized capital gains. That will be a shit show as how are they going to define points in time to determine said value, will they allow tax deduction for unrealized capital losses, etc?

Agreed. Compliance would be a booger. Would we have the advantage in tech we do if founders of companies were constantly having to liquidate their ownership in their companies to pay tax?

Originally Posted by r66

And as to spending/impact on national debt, from 2010 until about 2020, the quarterly interest payment for the national debt was roughly 450 billion on average. Currently, the interest payment, under Biden, has hockey sticked to a little over 1 trillion per quarter...so doubled...



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

The numbers must be annualized, not quarterly. Still over $1 trillion a year in interest expense is frightening. Our defense budget is $840 billion for comparison. Maybe this played a part in the Fed's decision to drop rates by 0.5%, when inflation is still above their target. Given that the politicians, Democrat and Republican, are unlikely to get deficits under control, high real interest rates could make interest payments totally unmanageable at some point.

[Capital]

Originally Posted by r66

and the Dems also want to tax unrealized capital gains. That will be a shit show as how are they going to define points in time to determine said value, will they allow tax deduction for unrealized capital losses, etc?

Why do you and the hard right deliberately demagogue this tax proposal? You drop this line with zero context. You know the tax would only apply to wealth that exceeds 100 million dollars. But you leave that out, because it destroys your bullshit point.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Capital

Why do you and the hard right deliberately demagogue this tax proposal? You drop this line with zero context. You know the tax would only apply to wealth that exceeds 100 million dollars. But you leave that out, because it destroys your bullshit point.

Why did people condemn the German government for taking wealth away from some of its more prosperous and successful citizens, who happened to be Jewish, in the 1930's? Now Kamala certainly isn't as extreme. But Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are.

This would backfire, as described in my reply to r66 above.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Did you think an oil and gas executive would say anything else? Looks like he's in the 3% (or the 3-20%, lol). The "debunking" doesn't get us to zero. Dude is basically saying, "It's not 97%!"

NASA site cites more than once source from 2004-2022. Wikipedia is not a government site, and they cite surveys from the 1970 through the 2020s. And, back to CSM -- it's complicated.

Be best.

i did cut what NASA says down to 80 percent. they are a biased source anyway. the real debunk is that Obama lied about "97% of scientists agree in man-made climate change."


Obama made it up.


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...nd-core-issues


Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.


Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.


One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.


The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.


Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.


In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.


So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.


The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.


But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.


Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.


Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”


Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.


What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.


Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.


The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … Find the deniers near you - and call them out today.” How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagogy to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

[cc314]

Just for yucks, here is one that says it's NOT 97% Oh noooooo! They say it's 99%. lol Debunk if you want, but I agree that number seems high. https://theconversation.com/the-97-c...an-that-170370

Before I get to far, you're at 80%. Cool (pun intended). I was never stuck at 97%. My response was agreement with "it's complicated." I haven't changed my position. You mentioned 97%, and I found some links. I do believe 80% is low, but I haven't had time to take a deep dive into the Oil Guy's source(s).

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid;1063593509[COLOR=#ff0000

]i did cut what NASA says down to 80 percent.[/COLOR] they are a biased source anyway. the real debunk is that Obama lied about "97% of scientists agree in man-made climate change."

Obama made it up.

Obama tweeted it (and probably said it in speeches). I was thinking he might have left out the climate scientists part (not great, but not made up), but not according to your source below. I believe there are reports from the time frame that put the number at 97%. Politician mis-cites or mis-quotes reports, oh no. Your source's methodological arguments are worth looking into, but a lot is just opinion ("made up", "fabrication", etc.).

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...nd-core-issues

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up.At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

Cited the wrong survey, if one believes your source, OK. "Basically made it up" is a stretch.

The rest is mainly your source's opinion of an IPCC report. When I have time, I'll take a look, and look for something newer from the IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … Find the deniers near you - and call them out today.” How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagogy to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

"It's 97%!" could be false propaganda and demogogy, but so could, "It's not 97%" and "there isn't prove otherwise."

Sounds complicated.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Just for yucks, here is one that says it's NOT 97% Oh noooooo! They say it's 99%. lol Debunk if you want, but I agree that number seems high. https://theconversation.com/the-97-c...an-that-170370

Before I get to far, you're at 80%. Cool (pun intended). I was never stuck at 97%. My response was agreement with "it's complicated." I haven't changed my position. You mentioned 97%, and I found some links. I do believe 80% is low, but I haven't had time to take a deep dive into the Oil Guy's source(s).



"It's 97%!" could be false propaganda and demogogy, but so could, "It's not 97%" and "there isn't prove otherwise."

Sounds complicated.

your "proof" is amusing


"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."


let me ask you this .. if you took a test in college and "self-graded" it .. would you flunk yourself?


BAAHHAAA

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

your "proof" is amusing

"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

let me ask you this .. if you took a test in college and "self-graded" it .. would you flunk yourself?

BAAHHAAA

My link in post 21 was for yucks. It was meant to be amusing.
If you meant my proof that it's complicated, you're helping me with that. Thanks.

In terms of your question, I am not the topic of this thread.

Be best.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

My link in post 21 was for yucks. It was meant to be amusing.
If you meant my proof that it's complicated, you're helping me with that. Thanks.

In terms of your question, I am not the topic of this thread.

Be best.

you never were. and the micro-topic by the OP is climate change. and "for yucks" means you can't prove your claim with actual credible data.


be better than that .. or at least get "better" data


TWK

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you never were. and the micro-topic by the OP is climate change. and "for yucks" means you can't prove your claim with actual credible data.

be better than that .. or at least get "better" data

TWK

Yes, the micro-topic is climate change. Your question creates a new micro-topic which is not part of the original thread.

We disagree on the definition of "for yucks."

Most of both of our articles are short on data. There might be links to data. We'll see.

Thanks again for your help with my answer; it's complicated.

[The_Waco_Kid]

on the micro-topic of climate change ...








oops!

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, if you want American companies to be competitive, you need to do away with the tariffs, keep the corporate tax rate at a reasonable level compared to other countries, and not over-regulate.

WRONG

Tariffs have a place to keep some countries from dumping products dramatically below the cost of production.
.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

on the micro-topic of climate change ...



oops!

Great source! #sarcasm
Video is from Tony Heller. Here is his site, https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0
Here is how his site is rated (quackery, ouch), https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/
Info about his pseudonym, https://en.everybodywiki.com/Steven_Goddard
His graphs do look interesting, so I'll see if I can find something from a better source or sources.
Good stuff. #notsarcasm

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Great source! #sarcasm
Video is from Tony Heller. Here is his site, https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0
Here is how his site is rated (quackery, ouch), https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/
Info about his pseudonym, https://en.everybodywiki.com/Steven_Goddard
His graphs do look interesting, so I'll see if I can find something from a better source or sources.
Good stuff. #notsarcasm

amusing. everybodywiki is your "source"

sounds "credible" ... NOT!


bahahahaa

[Precious_b]

Many years ago, a friend of my who is a statistician was talking about how they collected the data points used to come up with the global warming thing. He did this to illustrate a point. And that was with problems you get when you use bad data. I can't remember the specifics, but he said that is what happened with the initial hypothesis of global warming.

Now, the earth has had periods of temperature rise throughout its existence. But it is hard to talk away how hot it is getting in such a short period of time. Hard to believe that it can't be because of people.