The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Chizzang]

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.

Something like that...
Oil companies love including - in their tax information - the state taxes applied right at the pump
they show that figure in EVERY article posted

and that is precisely NOT what is being discussed
but its an old trick and has worked for years in this debate
But when you include rebates and loopholes and credit and associated other factors
in the end Exxon Mobile pays very little in federal taxes

and I'm perfectly fine with that
I like how the world is today - it totally works great for me
Do not confuse information with dissatisfaction

[BDKJMU]

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.

Something like that...
Oil companies love including - in their tax information - the state taxes applied right at the pump
they show that figure in EVERY article posted

and that is precisely NOT what is being discussed
but its an old trick and has worked for years in this debate
But when you include rebates and loopholes and credit and associated other factors
in the end Exxon Mobile pays very little in federal taxes

and I'm perfectly fine with that
I like how the world is today - it totally works great for me
Do not confuse information with dissatisfaction

Posted this on a thread 2 years ago, so 2012 tax info.
"Which Corporate Giants Pay The Most In Taxes?

1. ExxonMobil
Income tax expense: $31 billion
Net income: $45 billion
Effective tax rate: 39%

2. Chevron
The oil giant pay among the highest tax rates because of overseas royalties that float with the price of oil.
Income tax expense: $20 billion
Net income: $26 billion
Effective tax rate: 43%

3. Apple
Income tax expense: $14.2 billion
Net income: $41.7 billion
Effective tax rate: 25%

4. Wells Fargo
Income tax expense: $9.2 billion
Net income: $19.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 31.2%

5. JPMorgan Chase
Income tax expense: $8.1 billion
Net income: $22.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 26%

6. Walmart
Income tax expense: $8 billion
Net income: $17 billion
Effective tax rate: 31%

7. ConocoPhillips
Conoco paid the highest effective tax rate of any company on the list.
Income tax expense: $7.9 billion
Net income: $8.4 billion
Effective tax rate: 51.5%

8. Berkshire Hathaway
Still complaining about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, Buffett could just do us all a favor and pay double to the U.S. Treasury.
Income tax expense: $6.9 billion
Net income: $14.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 28%

9. IBM
Big Blue has in recent years shifted tens of thousands of jobs from the U.S. to lower-cost (and lower-taxed) India.
Income tax expense: $5.3 billion
Net income: $16.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 24%

10. Microsoft
Microsoft saves on taxes by routing revenues through the likes of low-tax Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.
Income tax expense: $4.6 billion
Net income: $15.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 22.8%

11. Philip Morris International
Philip Morris sells smokes outside the U.S. and is triple the size of sister company Altria.
Income tax expense: $3.8 billion
Net income: $8.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 29.5%

12. Goldman Sachs
Income tax expense: $3.7 billion
Net income: $7.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 33%

13. Comcast
Income tax expense: $3.7 billion
Net income: $6.2 billion
Effective tax rate: 32%

14. Procter & Gamble
Tide, Gillette, Pampers, Duracell, Crest, Braun, Pantene, and on and on.
Income tax expense: $3.6 billion
Net income: $12.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.5%

15. Johnson & Johnson
Band-Aids, Listerine, Tylenol, Neutrogena, Rolaids, Visine, etc.
Income tax expense: $3.3 billion
Net income: $10.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.7%

16. Intel
Income tax expense: $3.2 billion
Net income: $10.3 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.6%

17. Occidental Petroleum
Income tax expense: $3.1 billion
Net income: $4.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 42%

18. UnitedHealth Group
Biggest health insurer is bracing for Obamacare, which will set profit margins.
Income tax expense: $3.1 billion
Net income: $5.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 35.9%

19. Walt Disney
Income tax expense: $3 billion
Net income: $5.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 32.7%

20. AT&T
Income tax expense: $2.9 billion
Net income: $7.3 billion
Effective tax rate: 27.8%

21. Oracle
Larry Ellison plans a winter sailing base on his recently purchased Hawaiian island of Lanai.
Income tax expense: $2.9 billion
Net income: $10.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 21.4%

22. Coca-Cola Company
Income tax expense: $2.7 billion
Net income: $9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.1%

23. Home Depot
Home Depot has the highest tax rate of any non-oil company on this list.
Income tax expense: $2.7 billion
Net income: $4.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 37.2%

24. McDonald's
CEO Jeff Skinner has been outspoken about the need to cut U.S. corporate taxes.
Income tax expense: $2.6 billion
Net income: $5.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 32.4%

25. Google
Google is under fire in the U.K. for paying just $9 million in taxes on $3.8 billion in revenues there.
Income tax expense: $2.6 billion
Net income: $10.7 billion
Effective tax rate: 19.4%"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopher ... ost-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... il#p776574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

I get it - Yes there it is...
But you do realize the TAX at the pump is calculated into that number you're posting (right?)
it goes straight to the state and federal government right at the pump

Here's a little piece:

These Fuel Tax revenue losses have been a major factor in the worsening condition of the nation’s infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), a quarter of America’s bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, one-third of the nation’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, almost half of all major urban highways are congested, and nearly half of all Americans lack access to bus or rail transit. As a result of these deficiencies, the ASCE estimates that Americans waste the monetary equivalent of $32 billion in travel time delays each year, and another $97 billion on vehicle operating costs. Given all these problems, it should come as little surprise that even business leaders—a group hardly enamored with taxes—often come down on the side of raising state gas taxes in order to fund a more efficient transportation system.

When gas taxes are allowed to stagnate, the consequences are not always limited to state transportation systems. Recently, a number of states have enacted long-term raids on their general funds, where a certain percentage of tax revenue usually reserved for education, human services, and other public priorities is siphoned off to make up for lagging gas tax revenues. Some lawmakers have pointed out the problems with this approach, but far too many view a general fund Band-Aid as an easy way to delay politically difficult, but long-overdue reforms to the gas tax.

and here's some more info:
http://itep.org/itep_reports/2013/05/do ... XIzrs9VhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[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.

This was one of my finer moments!

Fuck ya'll.

[AZGrizFan]

Chief Sealth probably protested deforestation in a dugout canoe.

This was one of my finer moments!

Fuck ya'll.

It's funny. Don't be too hard on yourself, klammy.

[kalm]

This was one of my finer moments!

Fuck ya'll.

It's funny. Don't be too hard on yourself, klammy.

Phew!

[kalm]

Here you go Tman. A reasonable discussion on the Pause including theories that the energy is being stored in the oceans or errors in the measuring (heard that one before? ), cooling affects of aerosols and volcanic activity etc. You're favorite climatologist Michael Mann also points to the fact that the Pause still fits within the predictions of some models. But the part I want you to focus on the most is the fact the article includes dissenting views.

Potent ammunition for climate contrarians
Santer expressed frustration that scientists and others who are skeptical of global warming had used the pause in temperature increases as evidence to say climate change is not happening.

In fact, testimony by William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University who pointed out the pause in warming to members of Congress, spurred some of Santer's research into the topic.

Happer believes that carbon dioxide does have a warming effect on the atmosphere but that its effect has been wildly overestimated by climate models.

Happer first noted the slowdown in surface warming in 2005, he said.

After the 1998 El Niño, which had a warming effect, and a subsequent La Niña, which had a global cooling effect, "it never really started warming again," Happer said. "It just sort of settled down to a flat plateau which we are still in. ... And by now it's completely at odds with some of the models."

To Happer, the lesson of the slowdown in surface temperatures is that models greatly overestimate the role of CO2 in warming the atmosphere.

Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another prominent critic of climate models, said the recent slowdown in surface warming demonstrates how climate models fail to simulate natural variability.

"The longer [the pause] goes on, the more significant it becomes," Lindzen said. At some point, he continued, models will be so clearly wrong that the public will reject them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ng-paused/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're welcome.

[travelinman67]

"...reasonable..." discussion?

Almost two year old article...written before much of the Anglia/NOAA data cooking was uncovered.

Surprised you didn't post the subsequent comment:

SiskoNovember 1, 2013
Stephanie Paige Ogburn writes a thoroughly misleading article that is as a minimum highly inaccurate, and arguably nothing more than intentional propaganda filled with distortions and untruths.
Stephanie writes- “Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused.” That is completely untrue. Many climate scientists are observing the divergence from what climate models forecasted and are working to understand why the models failed to match observed conditions.
Stephanie- you know what you wrote was untrue and you know I could list a number of climate scientists that disagree with your comment. My question to you—why lie and claim a consensus where you KNOW that no such consensus exists? Anyone up on the current reading knows what I have written is true.
The propaganda piece continues with- “Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said”My response- Like gangbuster huh? The rate of sea level rise has been pretty consistant since we have had reasonably accurate tools for measurement. The rate of rise is about 2 foot per century [EDIT: Actual rate is 1 foot per century] and has shown zero evidence of an increasing rate of rise. Without an huge increase in the rate of rise all the IPCCs projections of great harm from AGW dissolve as unfounded. That is a simple truth.
Stephanie writes- “The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled”
My response- LOL at the IPCC and Stephanie. Look at the actual data. There is no evidence of a doubling of the rate of rise. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ That is the actual data from the satellites—does anyone see an increase in the rate of rise between 1993 and 2010—NO Stephanie keeps quoting the small cadre of climate scientists that formed conclusions based on bad climate models and poor paleo data.

Clitz is correct in that the science has been drowned out by polarized propaganda.

[expandspanos]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9YvvbTfKUA[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euZIEO1idUA[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvDJ-MKtedY[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JecwdQzzcV8[/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

I get it - Yes there it is...
But you do realize the TAX at the pump is calculated into that number you're posting (right?)
it goes straight to the state and federal government right at the pump

Here's a little piece:

These Fuel Tax revenue losses have been a major factor in the worsening condition of the nation’s infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), a quarter of America’s bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, one-third of the nation’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, almost half of all major urban highways are congested, and nearly half of all Americans lack access to bus or rail transit. As a result of these deficiencies, the ASCE estimates that Americans waste the monetary equivalent of $32 billion in travel time delays each year, and another $97 billion on vehicle operating costs. Given all these problems, it should come as little surprise that even business leaders—a group hardly enamored with taxes—often come down on the side of raising state gas taxes in order to fund a more efficient transportation system.

When gas taxes are allowed to stagnate, the consequences are not always limited to state transportation systems. Recently, a number of states have enacted long-term raids on their general funds, where a certain percentage of tax revenue usually reserved for education, human services, and other public priorities is siphoned off to make up for lagging gas tax revenues. Some lawmakers have pointed out the problems with this approach, but far too many view a general fund Band-Aid as an easy way to delay politically difficult, but long-overdue reforms to the gas tax.

and here's some more info:
http://itep.org/itep_reports/2013/05/do ... XIzrs9VhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-As far as nearly half of all Americans not having access to bus or rail, so what. How many Americans don't live in cities. Outside of the 2 coasts America is WAY more spread out/less dense than Europe..

-And the fed and some states (PA is a prime example) have been raiding their transportation funds for years to pay for things other than roads and bridges.
-A major reason for the state of our roads & bridges now is Davis Bacon, esp in the non right to work states. Our transportation spending on roads & bridges doesn't go nearly as far as it should because of bloated labor costs and unproductive work rules contributing to the current state.

I'll give an example that I'm familiar with- PA & Philly. Over a period of 15 years the crooks at the Delaware River Port Authority, a political patronage dumping ground, diverted about 500 million of toll $$ for the public financing of non transportation related so called "community redevelopment projects". Just off the top of my head the Linc (Eagles), Citizens Banks Park (the Phillies), PPL Park (MLS stadium in Chester), the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, museums, a cancer center, the Army/Navy FB game, etc. At the same time were borrowing hundreds of millions to maintain the 4 bridges and rail line. Meanwhile since 2003 bridge tolls over the Delaware have gone from $2.70 with EZPass ($2.00 with commuter discount) to $3 to $4 to $5, and will probably have to go up more because the DRPA is about 1.6 million in debt.

PA, thanks to a 2013 transportation bill passed by Donks and RINO conks, and signed by a incompetent RINO conk governor voted out of office (good riddance) nearly doubles the state gas tax from 2014-2017, with 2 of 3 increases in place, now has the highest has taxes in the nation (about 70 cents a gallon) on top of sone of the highest tolls (2 major interstates and bridge tolls into NJ, much of which doesn't go to roads & bridges but is siphoned off to subsidize mass transit). And that extra gas tax $$ will pour into PennDot, another political patronage dumping ground with a history of corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse.

I'm sure people in other states can give similar examples.

[BDKJMU]

GD double post.....

[kalm]

Santorum to Pope: Get a science degree or STFU!

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Pope Francis to “leave science to the scientists” last week, following comments from the pontiff (who has a chemistry degree) that humans were obligated to protect creation. This led Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace to wonder: if the Pope shouldn’t talk science, why should GOP candidates?

“If he’s not a scientist — and, in fact, he does have a degree in chemistry — neither are you,” Wallace said.

“We have to make public policy with regard to the environmental policy,” Santorum said. “Whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decisions with respect to our public policy that affect American workers.”

“I’m saying, what should the Pope use his moral authority for?” he asked. “There are more pressing problems confronting the earth than climate change.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-to-s ... hould-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

Santorum to Pope: Get a science degree or STFU!

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Pope Francis to “leave science to the scientists” last week, following comments from the pontiff (who has a chemistry degree) that humans were obligated to protect creation. This led Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace to wonder: if the Pope shouldn’t talk science, why should GOP candidates?

“If he’s not a scientist — and, in fact, he does have a degree in chemistry — neither are you,” Wallace said.

“We have to make public policy with regard to the environmental policy,” Santorum said. “Whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decisions with respect to our public policy that affect American workers.”

“I’m saying, what should the Pope use his moral authority for?” he asked. “There are more pressing problems confronting the earth than climate change.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-to-s ... hould-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This Pope is the best thing to happen to the Catholic Church since St. Francis
It's been a thousand years since

Leave it up to probably the dumbest human presently holding office
(excluding the island tipping over guy) to criticize this awesome pope

[Baldy]

Santorum to Pope: Get a science degree or STFU!



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-to-s ... hould-you/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This Pope is the best thing to happen to the Catholic Church since St. Francis
It's been a thousand years since

Leave it up to probably the dumbest human presently holding office
(excluding the island tipping over guy) to criticize this awesome pope

Santorum doesn't presently hold an office. (let's pray he never does again---pun intended).

Remember Clitzang, this Pope is still against gay marriage and abortion, so don't fall too deep into love just yet.

[Chizzang]

This Pope is the best thing to happen to the Catholic Church since St. Francis
It's been a thousand years since

Leave it up to probably the dumbest human presently holding office
(excluding the island tipping over guy) to criticize this awesome pope

Santorum doesn't presently hold an office. (let's pray he never does again---pun intended).

Remember Clitzang, this Pope is still against gay marriage and abortion, so don't fall too deep into love just yet.

Baby steps...
He seems to be more than just a mouthpiece
Christianity has shown an amazing ability to evolve (full pun intended)
and Pope's like this help the process along

[89Hen]

Chemtrails

Easily one of the worst of the conspiracy theories to date.

[travelinman67]

Review of ABC network's 2008 alarmist prediction, "New York City will be underwater due to Climate Change by June 2015"...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... hange-june

[travelinman67]

NOAA "pristine" data shows U.S. in 10 year cooling period.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/ameri ... ing-trend/





Oops!

[CID1990]

You guys be careful

the author of the hockey stick will sue you fir defamation

[Pwns]

Review of ABC network's 2008 alarmist prediction, "New York City will be underwater due to Climate Change by June 2015"...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... hange-june

Obama's fracking and subsidies for corn and solar saved us from that. Duh.

[travelinman67]

Bill Nye, one fucked up guy...

...now claims overpopulation is causing Climate Change...

http://www.progressivestoday.com/bill-n ... nge-video/

[Brock Landers]

Chemtrails

Easily one of the worst of the conspiracy theories to date.

You should meet my mother-in-law

[travelinman67]

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 24118.html

EPA Commissar Gina McCarthy Denounces Hoax Doubters as Not “Normal Human Beings”

Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09

Ever get the impression that our rulers don’t like us very much? More confirmation:EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.
McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a reporton the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.
If she were to answer critiques, she might explain how anyone but politically obedient fools could be expected to still believe in the hoax when there hasn’t been any warming for nearly 19 years despite skyrocketing CO2 levels, which thoroughly debunks the theory the hoax is based on.
Regarding those skeptics she won’t answer,“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day,” McCarthy said. “It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”
So the non-gullible not only are not “normal human beings,” we don’t want the pointy-headed masterminds to “do the right thing” by deliberately crippling the economy with still more taxes and regulations. We are just plain bad.
To be called abnormal by a moonbat freak like Gina McCarthy really stings.

[Chizzang]

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 24118.html

EPA Commissar Gina McCarthy Denounces Hoax Doubters as Not “Normal Human Beings”

Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09

Ever get the impression that our rulers don’t like us very much? More confirmation:EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.
McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a reporton the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.
If she were to answer critiques, she might explain how anyone but politically obedient fools could be expected to still believe in the hoax when there hasn’t been any warming for nearly 19 years despite skyrocketing CO2 levels, which thoroughly debunks the theory the hoax is based on.
Regarding those skeptics she won’t answer,“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day,” McCarthy said. “It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”
So the non-gullible not only are not “normal human beings,” we don’t want the pointy-headed masterminds to “do the right thing” by deliberately crippling the economy with still more taxes and regulations. We are just plain bad.
To be called abnormal by a moonbat freak like Gina McCarthy really stings.

I can't tell you how much I got the giggle over this T-man
Thank you so much my old friend

Why did I get a case of the snickers over this - because - you always seem genuinely shocked
whenever you run into somebody as bat-sh!t crazy as you are (which makes me smile)



Yup She's a TRUE BELIEVER
and you've met your dream match Yen and Yang

[travelinman67]

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 24118.html

I can't tell you how much I got the giggle over this T-man
Thank you so much my old friend

Why did I get a case of the snickers over this - because - you always seem genuinely shocked
whenever you run into somebody as bat-sh!t crazy as you are (which makes me smile)



Yup She's a TRUE BELIEVER
and you've met your dream match Yen and Yang

I'll admit there's some truth to your observation.

One big difference though...

...I don't control one of the largest regulatory agencies responsible for establishing rules that have hundreds of billions dollars impact on the economy, and genuinely effect the lives of every American, in some cases, determining their means to survive.

I thought Browner and Jackson were reckless...then along comes McCarthy.