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.
#127 – SL
>>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.
Man. You drive a hard bargain.
OK then, we won’t call the artificial propping up of the oil industry (at the expense of other forms of energy) a “subsidy”, we’ll refer to in from here on out as “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”. Are you happy now?
>>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)
Well, let’s get back into a homoerotic lovefest with Bobbo. “It’s all definitional”. If you want to consider the energy industry to be nothing more than Exxon-Mobil and their ilk, then they’re all taxed at the same rate. By the same token, if all Chevy dealers pay 10% tax and all Ford dealers pay 50% tax, all members of the Chevy industry are taxed at the same rate. It doesn’t mean that Ford wouldn’t find itself in 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“.
Since we’re all in agreement here now, I guess we can expand our homoerotic love fest to a three-way! I see you’re bending over already, stud!
#128 – ‘dro
Christ, I don’t even like Seinfeld OR his show, and here you’ve got me working overtime on The Google to look up characters on his show.
OK, he was in importin’ exportin’ man. You made a funny. I get it.
Its very gay to turn a discussion about economic policy into one of homo-eroticism.
Why did you do that Sea Lawyer?==full of arab seamen? ((Ships of the Desert allusion, one of my favorite word plays. Don’t think Carlin ever used it, old, even then.))
Here’s a fun mental exercise: is a sales tax a tax paid by the buyer or the seller, and why?
I’m throwing you a bone with this one.
#132 – SL
>>I’m throwing you a bone with this one.
Hey! Just because I invited you to the homoerotic love fest doesn’t mean you should start getting agressive about it.
And what does it matter who pays the tax? That’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. If Milk Duds are levied a 5% sales tax and SweeTarts are levied a 40% sales tax, they find themselves in 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“.
Unless you consider the Mild Duds industry and the SweeTarts industry to be two separate industries.
#132–SL==I’ll bite on your hypothetical and leave Mustard to attack your bone.
Of course, its all definitional. Sorry to disappoint, but the Seller pays tax on total sales whether or not he charges the buyer any tax==hence “tax free sales.” So, by way of other definitions==of course the money comes initially from the buyer, money is fungible, passes thru the seller to the government. It is taxing on the seller to be squeezed by market forces and the requirement of the seller, not the buyer, to hand over sales tax.
Whats your preference?—and keep your bone to yourself.
#134 – Bobo
>>Sorry to disappoint, but the Seller pays tax
>>on total sales whether or not he charges the
>>buyer any tax==hence “tax free sales.”
Maybe you’d better concentrate on the bone.
The two times I’ve had experience with “tax free sales” or “reduced tax sales” have been in Massachusetts, where the state government suspends taxation for a short period of time in order to stimulate sales, and in New Jersey, where the state government reduces sales taxes in economically depressed areas to stimulate sales (and hence, the economy).
Don’t pay any attention to SL. He’s throwing down red herrings right and left to try and divert attention to his embarrassment over being shown that a “subsidy” is the moral equivalent of “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“.
Its not the moral equivalent, its the total and complete equivalent–aka==equivalent, or the same as, or it is what it is.
I’m glad he wasn’t around when the dash came up.
#133, why do you keep arguing a point that isn’t even mentioned in the document being discussed, and seems to be made up by you anyway? At most, the position is briefly stated that reduced taxes on oil companies results in less money the government can turn around and pump into development of competing energy sources. So who’s really being subsidized, and by whom?
Here’s a link for you: http://tinyurl.com/8hvvqv
I’ve included a fun excerpt: “ExxonMobil would have paid an extra $1.3 billion in income taxes in 2007 if the U.S. tax rate matched those of foreign countries. However, the company would have paid $1 billion less if it had been taxed at the average 22% rate that other U.S. manufacturers pay.”
#137 – SL
>>why do you keep arguing a point that isn’t
>>even mentioned in the document being
>>discussed, and seems to be made up by you
>>anyway?
The “document being discussed”, from what I can tell, is the silly and now-debunked article in the tech journal alleging that an “increase in sea ice” somehow sounds the death knell for global warming’s credibility.
Then we moved on to your assertion that the oil industry (i.e., Heart Attach Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal) hasn’t receive any perks from the gummint, be they “subsidies” or “situations that provide 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”.
I think that’s pretty well debunked now, too. Would you like to move on to the homoerotic love fest now, or did you have anything else to say?
tsk, tsk, skimming through posts causes people to miss things that might be useful to their own replies.
The only thing I’ve commented on this entire thread has been a document posted by Scott.
I think you mentioned getting boned somewhere up there.
#140, Sorry. As you likely guessed I do love to stray into tangents. I just assumed Grey Poupon was smart enough to follow along.
BTW, I did see the whole “dash incident.” I was my primary motivation for the calling lovefest.
#139 – SL
>>The only thing I’ve commented on this entire
>>thread has been a document posted by Scott.
Ah. I see. I must have mistakenly thought that you had some comments on “subsidies”. I guess it was someone else posting under your screen name.
“Not taxing, or reducing the tax of something is not a subsidy and it isn’t a cost to anybody.”
“Oh, I agree with you that our diplomatic and military efforts can be said to be, at least to a degree, a subsidy.
“Just like the local government granting easements to utility companies is a form of subsidy.”
“But it’s not a subsidy to simply not tax somebody.
“Food stamps given to the poor is a subsidy”
“Unless you want to take a very broad meaning for the word subsidy and say that anything I receive benefit or utility from that I didn’t directly pay for myself was subsidized by somebody else. “
My bad.
#142–SL==sorry you didn’t chime in. You have more hits than misses.
Well?
#137 – SL
>>Here’s a link for you:
I clicked on that link, went to the grocery store, came back, and the page STILL had not loaded.
Are you playing tricks on me, you rascally lawyer?
It opened right up for me. A careful read certainly justifies the failure to impose a windfall profit tax as an ongoing subsidy.
That and a raft load of McCain Repuglican losing rhetoric like we can drill our way to energy independence.
What a jackalope.
#143 – Bobbo
>>SL==sorry you didn’t chime in.
Maybe SL is taking Contempt’s way out, like when he (Contempt) made that ridiculous allegation about “vote fraud” in Minnesota, complete with imaginary numbers, then just STFU when I called bullshit on him.
#125 – pedro,
#117 You do now [sic] who Art Vandelay was, don’t you?
No. I didn’t know that level of detail about Seinfeld. Sorry. I was trying to have a serious conversation and forgot that you don’t know how.
Don’t worry though. I do know how to google. Apparently you do not.
However, I assume from your completely idiotic remark that you have conceded the point about subsidies.
#127 – Sea Lawyer,
#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.
Actually, this is not at all the case. The oil companies pay a far lower rate than other industries. That has indeed been the topic of this whole thread of conversation. Oil companies pay about 16% while publishers pay 23%. Human beings, those who actually have “inalienable rights” on the other hand pay dramatically more.
Though I know you have trouble with the concept of a tax break that costs money to those who have to make up the difference being a subsidy is against your ideas, will you at least concede that the real live money handed directly from the federal government to the oil companies qualifies as a subsidy?
If not, will you at least concede that we have never had a free market economy and that the financial rules are heavily stacked in favor of big oil? This is the real point of the conversation anyway.
#141, SL,
Accountants are notorious for their spin using numbers. Instead of comparing apples to oranges why not compare the oil companies to other American energy and manufacturing producers.
Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006
Not a subsidy?
There are plenty of other references out there. Because of the DU Spam Filter though, I’ll leave you with just these two.
NOTE TO ALL
The thread is about the Arctic sea ice extending to a historical level. The definition of a subsidy or ‘dro’s fascination with Sienfeld are distractions.
#153 – Mr. Fusion,
I thought we had settled that the arctic sea ice article was pointless in the extreme and said nothing at all about global warming. Therefore, the tangent was a welcome one to me.
In fact, I think I may have been the first to mention subsidies in post #57 in response to a stupid remark made earlier by Paddy-O in post #46. If this line of conversation has annoyed you, I apologize.
#154, Scott,
NO NO, far from it. My point is that several people made the claim above that the thread was about something else. The tangents the thread did evolve into though were relevant and well presented but the claim that a definition of “subsidies” or a discussion or “Art Vandellay” was now “the thread” I found annoying.
That special interest groups have hijacked the opposing scientific responsibility of challenging Climate Change is not off topic when exposing a bad article purporting a claim. Your post about “subsidies” was timely and relevant.
If anything, I should apologize for not being more specific. But, your humility is appreciated and acknowledged. And, I tip my hat to someone I admire for his intelligence and life choices.
# 155 Mr. Fusion said, on January 8th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I tip my hat to someone I admire for his intelligence and life choices.
And I to you. Should we now join in the homoerotic buggery circle mentioned above?
With respect to the serious topics on this thread:
1) Is there anyone left who still thinks the original article makes any point at all?
2) I will assume there are still those who do not believe a tax break is a subsidy, and who do not believe that the government when it gives one tax break must ask the rest of us to pick it up. However, is there anyone out there who does not believe that the Export Import Bank handing a physical check (or a wire transfer or an ACH transfer) to an oil company is a subsidy?
3) Is there anyone out there who thinks subsidizing oil companies is a good idea?
CO2 is not a “pollutant”. It’s an essential gas for all life on earth. CO2 levels have been much higher in the earth’s past — in fact life itself evolved when CO2 was over 4,000 pmm (it’s currently at about 380 ppm).
Tom T.,
True enough that CO2 is essential. But, humans and most of the other animal species on this planet were not around then and may not be able to survive if it gets that high again.
Our pre-industrial level of CO2 has given us a planet with an average temperature of 15 degrees C instead of -18 C. Can we survive at higher temperatures? Maybe. We’ve never tried.
We’re in the middle of a huge mass extinction right now, human caused, of course.
Large warm-blooded species fare very poorly in mass extinctions. Humans are a large warm-blooded species. If you want to guess who might survive this, look at those species who survived the P/T extinction 250 million years ago, e.g. turtles, horseshoe crabs, crocodilians, etc.
Don’t look at species that are essentially brand new, like us at a mere 200,000 years old.
#156, Scott,
1) Is there anyone left who still thinks the original article makes any point at all?
Maybe some troll such as in post #157. (that is funny)
#157, Mister T.,
CO2 is not a “pollutant”. It’s an essential gas for all life on earth. …
Well, most nutrients are essential for life. BUT, in too strong a dose they will kill you.
People need iron, copper, sodium, manganese, and many other elements, yet any one of those in high enough concentration will kill you. The same with CO2.
The earth’s biosphere has evolved to live with 0.04% CO2. At higher rates some plant life will die off while others will flourish. Humans will die if exposed to CO2 at 1.0% for over several hours. 10% will kill within minutes.
The same with water. We need water to breath but too much water will drown people. Consuming too much water will also kill. Too little water hinders breathing and total lack of water also kills.
Farmers spread nitrogen on their fields to make them grow. Too much nitrogen “burns” the field and nothing grows.
Madrid travel snarled by deepest snow in years
OMG. I’ve worked there on & off for the last decade. I didn’t think I’d ever see this.
I say bring back global warming. This global cooling is worse.
#161 – Paddy-trOll,
Always nice to see when someone can’t tell the difference between weather and climate.
However, in this case, it may be both. It has long been known that the North Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream, making Britain quite a lot warmer than Labrador, at the same latitude and also by the sea.
Since the gulf stream is already 30% slower than it used to be, this may well be an effect of a slowing gulf stream.
So, remember to keep the global in global warming. It’s not about every place on the map and it’s not about individual years. But, keep trying, you probably only have about 4,900 posts to go before you get lucky again.
http://tinyurl.com/8msdav
http://tinyurl.com/7aaoxt
Note the dates on these from 2005, so clearly not a case of explaining something after the fact, but a case of forecasting.