DailyTech – Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 – FYI.
Lies I say! Now Let’s All Sing! Laaaaaa! Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago. Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC’s Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing.
Perhaps the Dvorak.org should revisit this topic.
#97 – SL
>>Our entire tax code is discriminatory in
>>favor of whatever preferred behaviors those
>>in charge have the desire to promote, and
>>that is the problem with it.
So this is going to turn into a gay marriage/ civil union semantic squabble, hm?
The oil companies get financial benefits not available to most other industries, and as a result they can keep gasoline prices artificially low and still go home with more money in their pockets.
You just object to calling it a “subsidy”.
Fair enough. We can all agree that “oil companies get financial benefits not available to most other industries, and as a result they can keep gasoline prices artificially low and still go home with more money in their pockets“.
How’s that?
#99 – Mustard
Let’s make that even more precise and accurate, and all agree that “oil companies get financial benefits, (at cost to the taxpayer) not available to most other industries, and as a result they can keep gasoline prices artificially low and still go home with more money in their pockets“.
#97 – Sea Lawyer,
Our entire tax code is discriminatory in favor of whatever preferred behaviors those in charge have the desire to promote, and that is the problem with it.
Fairly true. I do support some discriminatory taxes, e.g. vice taxes. Otherwise, I agree. Whether I buy a home or rent one, my taxes should be the same. Either the home expenses are deductible, applying to both mortgage interest and rent, or not.
That said, while the taxes are discriminatory in nature, those receiving the breaks, such as oil, are indeed receiving a subsidy from those of us required to pay more to cover their costs.
I would also argue that we are indeed subsidizing home-ownership and child-rearing, neither of which should be subsidized. However, the oil subsidies are more abhorrent to me, especially at a time when oil is quite literally killing us in a variety of ways, such as:
1) Global warming. (already killing people in Darfur)
2) 3 million deaths per year from air pollution.
3) The oil rich nations paying for terrorism.
There are probably others as well. Feel free to add to the list.
#97 – Sea Lawyer,
Our entire tax code is discriminatory in favor of whatever preferred behaviors those in charge have the desire to promote, and that is the problem with it.
Fairly true. I do support some discriminatory taxes, e.g. vice taxes. Otherwise, I agree. Whether I buy a home or rent one, my taxes should be the same. Either the home expenses are deductible, applying to both mortgage interest and rent, or not.
That said, while the taxes are discriminatory in nature, those receiving the breaks, such as oil, are indeed receiving a subsidy from those of us required to pay more to cover their costs.
I would also argue that we are indeed subsidizing home-ownership and child-rearing, neither of which should be subsidized. However, the oil subsidies are more abhorrent to me, especially at a time when oil is quite literally killing us in a variety of ways, such as:
1) Global warming. (already killing people in Darfur)
2) 3 million deaths per year from air pollution.
3) The oil rich nations paying for terrorism.
There are probably others as well. Feel free to add to the list.
#100, since in this case they are also “the taxpayer,” having a reduced tax rate costs “the taxpayer” nothing.
#101 – SL
OK, so you’re a taxpayer, and I’m a taxpayer. Let’s assess me a tax rate of zero, and you pay 100% tax.
That costs “the taxpayer” nothing, right?
You been taking debating lessons from Paddy-RAMBO, or what?
If you aren’t being taxed, then you aren’t a taxpayer. Your ridiculous example failed before it even got off the ground.
#97 – Sea Lawyer,
Our entire tax code is discriminatory in favor of whatever preferred behaviors those in charge have the desire to promote, and that is the problem with it.
Fairly true. I do support some discriminatory taxes, e.g. vice taxes. Otherwise, I agree. Whether I buy a home or rent one, my taxes should be the same. Either the home expenses are deductible, applying to both mortgage interest and rent, or not.
That said, while the taxes are discriminatory in nature, those receiving the breaks, such as oil, are indeed receiving a subsidy from those of us required to pay more to cover their costs.
I would also argue that we are indeed subsidizing home-ownership and child-rearing, neither of which should be subsidized. However, the oil subsidies are more abhorrent to me, especially at a time when oil is quite literally killing us in a variety of ways, such as:
1) Global warming. (already killing people in Darfur) *
2) 3 million deaths per year from air pollution. *
3) The oil rich nations paying for terrorism.
There are probably others as well. Feel free to add to the list.
* Links available but causing my comment to be flagged, even for one link at a time now.
#103 – SL
>>If you aren’t being taxed, then you aren’t a
>>taxpayer. Your ridiculous example failed
>>before it even got off the ground.
If I file a 1040, I’m a taxpayer.
But just to satisfy you, I’ll take a hit for 1% tax, but that means your liability might go up to 101%.
In any case, your delusional lampooning aside, the fact of the matter is that the oil companies are receiving benefits (or “are failing to be assessed liabilities”, if you must) that are different than other taxpayers. And they profit financially from it.
Maybe I’m just a poor ol’ country boy without all your fancy book learnin’ and jurisprudential knowledge, but where I come from, we call that a “subsidy”.
#104 – Supporting data.
I hate to post without links. Regarding Darfur as a result of climate change, this is the opinion of Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations.
http://tinyurl.com/39a8d7
# 104 Misanthropic Scott said, “I do support some discriminatory taxes”
Then don’t be a hypocrite by complaining about discriminatory tax codes.
#104 – Supporting data.
Regarding deaths from air pollution.
http://tinyurl.com/9xqqjw
http://tinyurl.com/96a8gv
#104 – Supporting data.
Regarding deaths from air pollution.
http://tinyurl.com/9xqqjw
#107 – Paddy RAMBO
>>Then don’t be a hypocrite by complaining
>>about discriminatory tax codes.
This is truly a red-letter day. Every time I think you can’t possibly say someting stupider than what you just said …WOOPS, you do it again. With a statement that reveals ignorance and stupidity thought not to be achievable among humans.
# 106 Misanthropic Scott said, “I hate to post without links. Regarding Darfur as a result of climate change, this is the opinion of …”
“This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.”
It’s called Global Warming. Unfortunately, as noted above, global temps have stopped rising.
“Climate change” is the only constant for this planet. What are we going to do when we start heading into the next ice age? (as eventually happens) Are we gong to need to switch to massive use of fossil fuel to keep the planet warm?
#107 Paddy-trOll,
# 104 Misanthropic Scott said, “I do support some discriminatory taxes”
Then don’t be a hypocrite by complaining about discriminatory tax codes.
I’m not. I don’t want to support the wrong things. Oil is a 19th century solution that will not work for 21st century problems. It should not be subsidized.
# 111 Misanthropic Scott said, “It should not be subsidized.”
It’s already been established that there is no subsidy.
Do try and keep up with the thread.
And, yes complaining about a practice you support IS hypocritical…
#110 Paddy-trOll,
It’s called Global Warming. Unfortunately, as noted above, global temps have stopped rising.
Can you read??!!?
The article, if article it can be called without citing a particular study, says nothing of the kind. It says that the first year arctic sea ice (in a year with a lot of it) has reached the extent of the arctic sea ice (in a year when there was not much) 20 years ago. Further, it ignores the difference between first year ice and multi-year pack ice, as noted by several people on this blog already.
#64–Sea Lawyer==not often wrong, but you are certainly putting your credibility into Paddy-Zero range when you say: “Not taxing, or reducing the tax of something is not a subsidy and it isn’t a cost to anybody.” /// WRONG on both counts.
Subsidy: a grant or gift of money.
Year one–everybody pays 15%
Year Two–everybody except Big Oil pays 15% but Big Oil by special tax code just enacted pays 10%. This provision to last for 5 years, then Big Oil to return to “everybody” status.
You see the “grant of money” here don’t you?
Further, when society calls on a pot of money for basic and required services and less money FOR WHATEVER REASON is put into that pot–all those reliant on that pot suffer the cost whether it is in higher taxes for the remaining taxpayers, or in reduced services.
Thinking like a repuglican will most often get you into trouble.
Your notion that it is “our” money and not the Governments is quite accurate==its just inappropriate in this case. Would you be “happy” if all the tax code stayed the same and a “grant of cash” instead of a “grant of tax reduction” was given all to the same net effect?
Form over function—bailywick of idiots.
#112 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>It’s already been established that there is
>>no subsidy.
Can you read??!!?
Just the opposite has been established.
You’re really outdoing yourself today.
Why not go for the gold, and claim that Bill Clinton didn’t have budget surpluses when he was in office?
#116 – pedro,
Well, you could, if you care enough to ask the question, go to the site and check.
What is it with this DU attracting trolls who can’t even click a link or do any research or read?
If you have more questions about them, please just go to the website.
http://www.exim.gov/
Eds: Sorry about the www, but the link didn’t work without it, so I think it’s necessary on this one.
#114,
Subsidy: a grant or gift of money.
You aren’t giving me anything by deciding to not take what was already mine.
It’s always nice to see people post definition that show they are incorrect. Saves me the time of doing it myself.
“Your notion that it is “our” money and not the Governments is quite accurate==its just inappropriate in this case. Would you be “happy” if all the tax code stayed the same and a “grant of cash” instead of a “grant of tax reduction” was given all to the same net effect?”
In what case is it appropriate then? Either it is yours and it is being taken, or it was not yours and is being graciously given to you. You obviously feel that wealth belongs to the government and what we have in our wallets is only there because the government was generous enough to let us have some.
idiots indeed.
#119–hah, hah, Sea Lawyer goes off into the deep end: its pretty obvious and clearly stated that “our” money is ours and not the governments. The fact that you try to change this direct statement is a measure of your delusion on the subject.
The “subject” of this thread is NOT your precious the money, the measure of your worth as a person. It is the definition of a subsidy. Address the formula given. If there is no net difference between what did occur and what you would agree was a subsidy, then what difference is there?
Math anyone?
#120, because the document is assigning a value to the government services provided and then adding again what wasn’t charged (taxed) for it. You can’t say the “real” price of a gallon of gas goes up by $2 because the government provided you with military protection, and then up another $1 because they didn’t tax you to pay for for it.
#119 – SL
>>You aren’t giving me anything by deciding to
>>not take what was already mine.
OK then. Let’s not call it a “subsidy”. Let’s call it “a situation that provides financial advantage to one group or organization that is peculiar to only that one group or organization but not others, providing them with a financial advantage not provided to others”.
Is that better?
It’s a little unwieldy, though. Perhaps we could come up with a shorthand term, something that conveys exactly the same meaning, but requires fewer than 34 words to express.
How about…. oh, I don’t know … a SUBSIDY?
#121–SL==you know I’d love to continue making fun of you. I thought you would have to either concede the point or dig your hole deeper==but you flummox me here going so completely off tanget.
Amusing none the less but not part of the dialectic. I will declare that a fail on your part.
Math wins I guess. The only language of proof.
#123 – Bobbo
>>Math wins I guess. The only language of
>>proof.
Hence, you accept Pascal’s mathematical arguments for why a rational person should believe in God.
Ahhhh, now THAT’S what I’m talkin bout.
#125 – ‘dro
>>You do now who Art Vandelay was, don’t you?
I had no idea who Art Vandelay was. Thanks to the magic of The Google, I know now.
Figures you’d be a fan of Jerry Seinfeld. Christ. They get that show down in Kuzconia, do they?
#122, you only have an advantage if somebody else has a corresponding disadvantage. If all the members of the industry are taxed at the same rate (i’m assuming they are since the paper only refers to the oil industry as a whole) regardless of what other, unrelated industries are taxed, who has a disadvantage? Doesn’t matter anyway, while a state of advantage my be the result of receiving a subsidy, it is not the definition of what is one.
#123, the argument over what is a subsidy is the tangent, which came about because of my objecting to how the document from Scott’s posted link came up with some dollar value for all of these services the government provides, and then “double-dipped” to also add the money they weren’t being taxed by calling it a subsidy too.