The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Chizzang]

I do lean towards AGW, I am skeptical about the degree to which we actually have an effect.
And anyone who actually looks at the number from the predictive models will conclude one of two things:

Either the science is bad or

We are collecting and compiling our results incorrectly (also bad science)

Tell you what- why don't you tell us who funds the science you agree with? Obviously not ExxonMobil or Shell, so who funds "your" science?

If there was a Republican president do you think government grants to study AGW would be more prolific? Or less?

You've been clear that research funded by Shell is dishonest (and it might well be)- so where's the honest science?

Also- related tangentially to this discussion is the EPA fracking report that was just issued. Go check it out (just don't look in the NYT they aren't covering it)

At this point in the early twenty first century
1) There is no global climate change study or report that is not FUNDED
2) Each report is designed to prove its already foregone conclusion
3) The foregone conclusion is either "A" or "B" there is no other acceptable outcome

We are WAY PAST any reasonable conversation on the subject of climate change

Note:
Hemp Plastics are finally (just now) not illegal - imagine that
and are presently in the process of being used to make most Kayaks

Oil processing and production is largely un-taxed government funded and carte blanche approved
any competing "plastic" processing was long ago squashed
Every possible thing that can be made of oil byproducts IS MADE with oil byproducts - BY DESIGN
Big Oil won that war a LONG LONG time ago

And Shell doesn't plant oil derricks to build Kayaks

[travelinman67]

EDIT: Study link provided in the third paragraph of the article...

Listen up, Klam...

...grow up.

Your trademark is to waste everyone's time with straw man arguments, hyperbole, rhetoric and talking points.

Rather than challenging the merit of a position or argument, as in this case, you challenge the credibility of the source, without even an effort to determine the source you impugn.

By definition, you are either an idiot or a troll. Either way, stop wasting our time.

And, btw, Napoleonic Complex is synonymous with dysfunctional insecurity, a trait of which is the OCD habit of always responding believing "having the last word" validates their superiority.

How long have you been afflicted?

Listen, Spandos…take a page from youtube marketing 101. You have 5 seconds to capture their attention, and one minute to convince. Links to links to third page links supporting the assertion don't work.

BTW, the edit link you just posted goes to Science Mag not the NOAA research (as I already pointed out) clearly proving you don't even read your own shit much less anyone else's.

Man you is slow….

Right below, "a. Abstract" are links to...

b. Full Text
c. Full Text (PDF)
d. Supplementary Materials
e. Version History
f. science.aaa5632v2 
g. (most recent)science.aaa5632v1

Since READING the study would take more than 5 seconds, why are you here?

Klam nonsense, time wasting response in 5-4-3-2...

[kalm]

How long have you been afflicted?

Listen, Spandos…take a page from youtube marketing 101. You have 5 seconds to capture their attention, and one minute to convince. Links to links to third page links supporting the assertion don't work.

BTW, the edit link you just posted goes to Science Mag not the NOAA research (as I already pointed out) clearly proving you don't even read your own shit much less anyone else's.

Man you is slow….

Right below, "a. Abstract" are links to...

b. Full Text
c. Full Text (PDF)
d. Supplementary Materials
e. Version History
f. science.aaa5632v2 
g. (most recent)science.aaa5632v1

Since READING the study would take more than 5 seconds, why are you here?

Klam nonsense, time wasting response in 5-4-3-2...

OK. Thanks! Before I check out the NOAA research, you did double check this time to make sure they don't lead to another Science Mag article, right? On account of we don't need you wasting my time

[kalm]

So I clicked the one that said "summary" and……….BINGO!!!!!!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1066.summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

I do lean towards AGW, I am skeptical about the degree to which we actually have an effect.
And anyone who actually looks at the number from the predictive models will conclude one of two things:

Either the science is bad or

We are collecting and compiling our results incorrectly (also bad science)

Tell you what- why don't you tell us who funds the science you agree with? Obviously not ExxonMobil or Shell, so who funds "your" science?

If there was a Republican president do you think government grants to study AGW would be more prolific? Or less?

You've been clear that research funded by Shell is dishonest (and it might well be)- so where's the honest science?

Also- related tangentially to this discussion is the EPA fracking report that was just issued. Go check it out (just don't look in the NYT they aren't covering it)

At this point in the early twenty first century
1) There is no global climate change study or report that is not FUNDED
2) Each report is designed to prove its already foregone conclusion
3) The foregone conclusion is either "A" or "B" there is no other acceptable outcome

We are WAY PAST any reasonable conversation on the subject of climate change

Note:
Hemp Plastics are finally (just now) not illegal - imagine that
and are presently in the process of being used to make most Kayaks

Oil processing and production is largely un-taxed government funded and carte blanche approved
any competing "plastic" processing was long ago squashed
Every possible thing that can be made of oil byproducts IS MADE with oil byproducts - BY DESIGN
Big Oil won that war a LONG LONG time ago

And Shell doesn't plant oil derricks to build Kayaks

Some people are still fighting the good fight.

http://bluemarblebio.com/company" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

So I clicked the one that said "summary" and……….BINGO!!!!!!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1066.summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serious question.

Are you diagnosed as mentally disabled?

[BDKJMU]

I do lean towards AGW, I am skeptical about the degree to which we actually have an effect.
And anyone who actually looks at the number from the predictive models will conclude one of two things:

Either the science is bad or

We are collecting and compiling our results incorrectly (also bad science)

Tell you what- why don't you tell us who funds the science you agree with? Obviously not ExxonMobil or Shell, so who funds "your" science?

If there was a Republican president do you think government grants to study AGW would be more prolific? Or less?

You've been clear that research funded by Shell is dishonest (and it might well be)- so where's the honest science?

Also- related tangentially to this discussion is the EPA fracking report that was just issued. Go check it out (just don't look in the NYT they aren't covering it)

At this point in the early twenty first century
1) There is no global climate change study or report that is not FUNDED
2) Each report is designed to prove its already foregone conclusion
3) The foregone conclusion is either "A" or "B" there is no other acceptable outcome

We are WAY PAST any reasonable conversation on the subject of climate change

Note:
Hemp Plastics are finally (just now) not illegal - imagine that
and are presently in the process of being used to make most Kayaks

Oil processing and production is largely un-taxed government funded and carte blanche approved
any competing "plastic" processing was long ago squashed
Every possible thing that can be made of oil byproducts IS MADE with oil byproducts - BY DESIGN
Big Oil won that war a LONG LONG time ago

And Shell doesn't plant oil derricks to build Kayaks

2013:
"1. Exxon Mobil
> Income tax expense: $31.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $78.7 billion (the most)
> Revenue: $428.4 billion (2nd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +14.5%
> Industry: Oil and gas....

2. Chevron
> Income tax expense: $20.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $46.3 billion (3rd most)
> Revenue: $222.6 billion (3rd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: 13.8%
> Industry: Oil and gas.....

6. ConocoPhillips
> Income tax expense: $7.9 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $15.4 billion (11th most)
> Revenue: $60.3 billion (45th most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +19.1%
> Industry: Oil and gas...."
http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... ost-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2014 Texas oil and gas taxes and royalties hit $15.7 billion
http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The energy producing states and local govts are making TENS of billions a year off of royalties and taxes...

[kalm]

So I clicked the one that said "summary" and……….BINGO!!!!!!!!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1066.summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serious question.

Are you diagnosed as mentally disabled?

Surrender accepted!

[CID1990]

I do lean towards AGW, I am skeptical about the degree to which we actually have an effect.
And anyone who actually looks at the number from the predictive models will conclude one of two things:

Either the science is bad or

We are collecting and compiling our results incorrectly (also bad science)

Tell you what- why don't you tell us who funds the science you agree with? Obviously not ExxonMobil or Shell, so who funds "your" science?

If there was a Republican president do you think government grants to study AGW would be more prolific? Or less?

You've been clear that research funded by Shell is dishonest (and it might well be)- so where's the honest science?

Also- related tangentially to this discussion is the EPA fracking report that was just issued. Go check it out (just don't look in the NYT they aren't covering it)

At this point in the early twenty first century
1) There is no global climate change study or report that is not FUNDED
2) Each report is designed to prove its already foregone conclusion
3) The foregone conclusion is either "A" or "B" there is no other acceptable outcome

We are WAY PAST any reasonable conversation on the subject of climate change

Note:
Hemp Plastics are finally (just now) not illegal - imagine that
and are presently in the process of being used to make most Kayaks

Oil processing and production is largely un-taxed government funded and carte blanche approved
any competing "plastic" processing was long ago squashed
Every possible thing that can be made of oil byproducts IS MADE with oil byproducts - BY DESIGN
Big Oil won that war a LONG LONG time ago

And Shell doesn't plant oil derricks to build Kayaks

no no no Clitz

you need to understand-

the only bad climate science being conducted is the science financed with oil money

all other science (read: government funded) is purely altruistic, immune to political bias, and financed with government money that of course never has strings attached

[travelinman67]

Serious question.

Are you diagnosed as mentally disabled?

Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup...

Accuracy

[kalm]

Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup...

Accuracy

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong and I really appreciate this. Thanks!

[Chizzang]

2013:
"1. Exxon Mobil
> Income tax expense: $31.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $78.7 billion (the most)
> Revenue: $428.4 billion (2nd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +14.5%
> Industry: Oil and gas....

2. Chevron
> Income tax expense: $20.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $46.3 billion (3rd most)
> Revenue: $222.6 billion (3rd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: 13.8%
> Industry: Oil and gas.....

6. ConocoPhillips
> Income tax expense: $7.9 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $15.4 billion (11th most)
> Revenue: $60.3 billion (45th most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +19.1%
> Industry: Oil and gas...."
http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... ost-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2014 Texas oil and gas taxes and royalties hit $15.7 billion
http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The energy producing states and local govts are making TENS of billions a year off of royalties and taxes...

Ah... who to believe
You're quoting state taxes ^ up there added at the pump


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06 ... e-tax-rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

[CID1990]

wait are we moving on to oil companies now?

[Chizzang]

wait are we moving on to oil companies now?

Not sure but I'm having a blast...
I thinks its funny how so many people on here think I hate oil companies
if they only knew



Exxon has some 300 odd internet sites independently commissioned by them
focused on image
Taxes / profit / processing / soil and land recovery / etc...

They spend millions on creating "image sites" for themselves
Type in some nefarious phrase - and- Exxon and you'll very likely get Exxon created sites in your search

Example:
Taxes -and- Exxon
Ecology - and -Exxon
Biology Exxon
Water Exxon
plastic Exxon
Earth Exxon

the list is staggering!!!
When you're netting $10 Billion in profit there's left over funds for such endeavors

[CID1990]

wait are we moving on to oil companies now?

Not sure but I'm having a blast...
I thinks its funny how so many people on here think I hate oil companies
if they only knew



Exxon has some 300 odd internet sites independently commissioned by them
focused on image
Taxes / profit / processing / soil and land recovery / etc...

They spend millions on creating "image sites" for themselves
Type in some nefarious phrase - and- Exxon and you'll very likely get Exxon created sites in your search

Example:
Taxes -and- Exxon
Ecology - and -Exxon
Biology Exxon
Water Exxon
plastic Exxon
Earth Exxon

the list is staggering!!!
When you're netting $10 Billion in profit there's left over funds for such endeavors

i dont think you hate oil companies

[dbackjon]

Except they are not protesting oil in general, but Shell's plan to drill in the Arctic.

[Chizzang]

Not sure but I'm having a blast...
I thinks its funny how so many people on here think I hate oil companies
if they only knew



Exxon has some 300 odd internet sites independently commissioned by them
focused on image
Taxes / profit / processing / soil and land recovery / etc...

They spend millions on creating "image sites" for themselves
Type in some nefarious phrase - and- Exxon and you'll very likely get Exxon created sites in your search

Example:
Taxes -and- Exxon
Ecology - and -Exxon
Biology Exxon
Water Exxon
plastic Exxon
Earth Exxon

the list is staggering!!!
When you're netting $10 Billion in profit there's left over funds for such endeavors

i dont think you hate oil companies

Every American should be invested in oil in some way...
Oil is who we are and what we do

"Know thy self"

[CID1990]

Except they are not protesting oil in general, but Shell's plan to drill in the Arctic.

oh that changes everything

no wonder you love hillary- that spin was positively Clintonesque

[Chizzang]

Jeezus,
They were protesting a few things
I'll explain if anybody actually cares (but nobody does)
the meme poster is cute but off the mark by a mile

[kalm]

Jeezus,
They were protesting a few things
I'll explain if anybody actually cares (but nobody does)
the meme poster is cute but off the mark by a mile

Chief Sealth probably protested deforestation in a dugout canoe.

[AZGrizFan]

wait are we moving on to oil companies now?

Not sure but I'm having a blast...
I thinks its funny how so many people on here think I hate oil companies
if they only knew



Exxon has some 300 odd internet sites independently commissioned by them
focused on image
Taxes / profit / processing / soil and land recovery / etc...

They spend millions on creating "image sites" for themselves
Type in some nefarious phrase - and- Exxon and you'll very likely get Exxon created sites in your search

Example:
Taxes -and- Exxon
Ecology - and -Exxon
Biology Exxon
Water Exxon
plastic Exxon
Earth Exxon

the list is staggering!!!
When you're netting $10 Billion in profit there's left over funds for such endeavors

Pretty funny. Our government runs horribly in the red every fucking year, yet they find the time and money to do basically the exact same thing.

[Chizzang]

Not sure but I'm having a blast...
I thinks its funny how so many people on here think I hate oil companies
if they only knew



Exxon has some 300 odd internet sites independently commissioned by them
focused on image
Taxes / profit / processing / soil and land recovery / etc...

They spend millions on creating "image sites" for themselves
Type in some nefarious phrase - and- Exxon and you'll very likely get Exxon created sites in your search

Example:
Taxes -and- Exxon
Ecology - and -Exxon
Biology Exxon
Water Exxon
plastic Exxon
Earth Exxon

the list is staggering!!!
When you're netting $10 Billion in profit there's left over funds for such endeavors

Pretty funny. Our government runs horribly in the red every fucking year, yet they find the time and money to do basically the exact same thing.

Churchill was spot on it...
We all control our own history - regardless of the facts



and: Nobody in our Federal Government is smart enough to do it as well as Exxon
I think THAT we can all agree on

[BDKJMU]

2013:
"1. Exxon Mobil
> Income tax expense: $31.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $78.7 billion (the most)
> Revenue: $428.4 billion (2nd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +14.5%
> Industry: Oil and gas....

2. Chevron
> Income tax expense: $20.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $46.3 billion (3rd most)
> Revenue: $222.6 billion (3rd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: 13.8%
> Industry: Oil and gas.....

6. ConocoPhillips
> Income tax expense: $7.9 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $15.4 billion (11th most)
> Revenue: $60.3 billion (45th most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +19.1%
> Industry: Oil and gas...."
http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... ost-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2014 Texas oil and gas taxes and royalties hit $15.7 billion
http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The energy producing states and local govts are making TENS of billions a year off of royalties and taxes...

Ah... who to believe
You're quoting state taxes ^ up there added at the pump


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06 ... e-tax-rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

Do you even read what you wrote? 8 companies are shown there paying a negative rate over three 3 years. None of them were oil companies. The bottom 4, including Exxon, paid a positive rate...

[BDKJMU]

Except they are not protesting oil in general, but Shell's plan to drill in the Arctic.

Which there is nothing wrong with.

Those tree huggers don't approve of plans to drill anywhere.
Offshore? No
ANWER? No
Any other fed lands? No
Heck, most of them probably don't approve of it on private lands...

[GannonFan]

Ah... who to believe
You're quoting state taxes ^ up there added at the pump


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06 ... e-tax-rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.

Do you even read what you wrote? 8 companies are shown there paying a negative rate over three 3 years. None of them were oil companies. The bottom 4, including Exxon, paid a positive rate...

Well, in Chizzie's defense, it appears as if the article itself was in disagreement with their own findings. In one line they say ExxonMobil paid a negative rate, and then in the table they showed them paying a positive rate. I think they need skellykelly's help with the visual aids. Either that or they multiplied some number by 6.93. Tough call.