This is standard for people at Princeton. They need to think they're first, and that it's a big step. From the looks of eprints.org it looks like Princeton is the 50th university in the United States to adopt an open access policy. Case Western Reserve's open access policy dates back to June of 2005.
Is a waver to that rule going to be granted to any conference proceeding published by Princeton University Press? Or are they going to make all their conference proceedings open access as well?
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
We've already demolished your "theory" that temperatures have been falling. We demolish it 3 times a week. Temperatures are only falling if you pick outlier years as your starting and ending points or just plain ignore the data. Temperatures have been climbing steadily. Humans are responsible for significantly more than half of that.
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Didn't we just go through this one as well? This is more proof that you're not interested in reality, you're just trying to convince people who don't know the science that you could be right. First, you're assuming that because the word "optimum" is there, that somehow conditions world wide would be better that it is now. And to some extent you are right, but not because of temperature, because of stability. The climate was stable during the Holocene Optimum, and somewhat cooler than it is now. There was also an increase in humidity that restricted the growth of desert regions. There is no reason to believe the erratic climate we're creating will result in any wide spread benefits both because there won't be stability. There also won't be uniform increases or decreases in temperature across the globe. The medieval warm period isn't even worth mentioning because it was a regional effect, not a global one, so overall heat and moisture flows were probably not significantly different from the usual patterns.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about.13C per decade...so a little over.5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
You haven't been paying attention. The natural forcings have been decreasing at about -0.05C/decade in that time. That makes humans responsible for 0.18C per decade in your estimate. Currently that's more like 0.23C per decade.
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up.32C in the past 50 years.
As soon as you demonstrate what benefit we could have had if it had gone up.64C in the past 50 years. In either case, it's beside the point. I don't need to prove the a hand grenade will damage a tank to show that a 500 pound bomb will.
That's funny, because that article pretty convincingly shows that something besides climate was driving crop yields from 1950 to 1997. I know you're not stupid enough to miss that.
Nothing at Watts' site should ever be confused with objective science. It's often real science reported in a biased manner to make a point that isn't supported by the data. Hurricane activity is a regional effect that is not directly linked to global temperature. They also are not modeled in global climate models. They depend on small scale details of winds and ocean surface temperatures. Gr
Ooh, a moron that can build a straw man and then knock it down. If you want to throw in an inflation correction and then tax the difference as normal income, that's fine by me. I don't happen to have any investments that I've held for 30 years that have merely doubled, other than ones that actually have paid dividends (rather than ripping off the shareholders by letting their executives swim in cash while returning nothing to the shareholders) Maybe you should sell investments that lose money rather than hold them for 30 years.
And this coming from someone who doesn't understand science well enough to know that looking for alien transmitters is different from believing that they exist. In other words, you are both imbecilic and uneducated. And I'm guessing ugly, too.
Yeah, because private health care is working just great in America. And the universal models in other countries suck so much. The struggle with public services in America is primarily due to people who think it's a great idea to pull resources out of the public services and give them to private service provider who do less at higher cost. And, of course, due to privatization of services, that results in at best in adequate or nonexistent services and at worst theft of public resources for profit motive.
What the GP left out is that this increase has already been taxed at the corporate tax rate. Capital gains tax is levied on top of the taxes already paid on the corporation's profits.
Not really. There's no double taxation involved in capital gains because share are not priced at the book value of the company. In addition the shareholders of a corporation and the corporation itself are separate entities.
You're assuming that the change in share value is related to profit (change in book value). It is not. Share price is related to estimates of future profit far more than it is to book value and current profit. If it weren't then shares would always be required to trade at book value.
Suppose you bought a share in a company that was worth 10 billion dollars (book) and was making 1 billion dollars a year in profit after 300 million in taxes. When you bought shares were $100 and there was no growth projected. After 1 year, you'd expect the company to be worth 11 billion dollars (book). What would that mean for your shares? $110? Probably not, book value went up, but return on investment dropped from 10% to 9%. The stock price may stay around $100. So, no connection between the corporate tax and your capital gains if you sell.
Now lets say the scenario is the same, but the company gets a long term contract that doubles its profits in the coming year ad infinitum. That will also double its corporate taxes in the future. None of the other numbers change. Share price? It'll probably end up at near $200. That's a $100 per capital gain if you sell. But the corporate tax didn't change. Again capital gains taxes are unrelated to corporate taxes. No connection unless you're connecting them to future corporate taxes.
If you go even deeper, the buying and selling prices are already reduced for anticipated corporate taxes which essentially removes them from any gain if the tax rates are stable.
Many current (outgoing) Republicans are, above all, into building power for themselves and the Federal government.
If you think any Republicans (and any Democrats) in congress aren't into building power for themselves and the Federal government, you really are drinking the koolaid. The difference is where in the Federal Government they want to build power. The Dems tend to want to build the Federal government on the social side. The Reps want to build the Federal government on the Millitary and Law Enforcement side. A lot of the people you may think are constitutional conservatives are having wet dreams about tapping every untrusted phone in the country.
It is income, and because investment is something that we've decided we want to encourage, the tax on income from investment is lower than other income.
Yeah because we know rich people would stuff their money in their mattresses if they didn't get a tax break. Lower taxes for investment income is moronic. It doesn't encourage investment, it encourages churning. It's not a investment boost, it's a commission boost. Yet another gift to Wall Street. It's also an invitation for executives to pretend their salary is really a capital gain. The company gives options and prints shares so the execs can buy them below market and sell them at market. The corporation steals from the shareholders and gives to the executive. In the process, the executive steals from the taxpayers.
Do you seriously think that 10 percent of the population is so much smarter and harder working than the other 90?
Yes. Without any doubt.
Smarter? That's debatable. Only if you consider "smarter" to be the exact equivalent of "more able to get a high paying job." Harder working? Not a chance in hell. That's the problem with the right wing "meritocracy". The definition of merit is wealth, and the only way to determine if someone is meritorious is weather they are wealthy. And that is taken to be equivalent to "smart and hard working." Of course, by that measure, Paris Hilton is a workaholic genius, while Edward Teller was a lazy half-wit.
The first is simple. Temperatures would have to diverge significantly from the profile expected from the human caused forcings. In other words if CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures drop for an extended period of time, that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. Two solar cycles without warming, or with cooling would kill it.
The second doesn't really need to be falsified until someone provides a reason (theory or model) that indicates there is a possibility that rapid climate change over much of the earth would be a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to believe it would be, and lots of recent evidence that it won't be. Short of that, it's like asking me to prove that release of an airborne version of the AIDS virus won't lead to the Earth becoming a stabe low population/high tech paradise. I can't prove it, but that's no reason to start weaponizing AIDS. "CO2 is plant food" doesn't cut it, primarily because it doesn't appear to stimulate growth in ways that result in carbon storage.
He posts this ten times a day. Someone sent him a email saying that the Koch brothers would donate a dollar to lobotomy research every time he posts it.
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
This is one reason why the right hates education. Anyone who can subtract the sales price from the amount invested can understand what a capital gain is, and can understand that tax was paid on the original investment but has not been paid on the gain. So the right would prefer a populace that can't subtract.
In other words, the capital gain is income, and should be taxed like income. And if you can't understand that, I can see why you'd vote for a tea party candidate. After all you wouldn't want anyone in office who can subtract.
How about college campuses that suppress students right wing ideas and philosophies but allow left?
That's not suppression. Right wing organizations just tend to attract fuckwads. The rest of your post is typical right wing claims of what they imagine to be oppression. "Oh the world is so unfair to rich/white/christian men. Look how the the secular government/women/minorities/universities keep us down. Good thing I'm a legacy or I never would have gotten in to an ivy league school or a good frat."
elrous0 is just upset that he got expelled from Wisconsin because he was caught pissing on the statue of Lincoln while yelling "How dare you impede the free market by freeing the slaves you damn hippy!"
Guess what water vapor does in sufficient quantity? Reflect radiation (not absorb it), called Anisotropic solar reflectance.
I think your studies are somewhat lacking. Water vapor is quite transparent to visible light. Maybe you're confusing that with reflectance of water droplets or crystals?
Yes, those are denier canards. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm The second one is so nonsensical it doesn't even require a serious response. Imagine what the planet would be like without the little bit of CO2 we have in the atmosphere.
You two yeses are in accord with science. You first two nos are a denial of scientific fact. Your third no makes absolutely no sense, but is also a denial of science.
Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.
I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.
Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?
The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits
Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.
It's funny, but it could use some polishing. First, everyone knows that the proper redneck tea party misspelling is "morans". Keep on with it though, and I'm sure that you'll be ready for a failed bid on America's Got Talent.
We mandate that hospitals provide care to everyone regardless of ability to pay. This just mandates that everyone at least provide some payment toward that end in an inefficient way. The optimal way would be, of course, to use tax dollars to provide health care to everyone. Then nobody needs to buy anything, and the problem that is health insurance companies goes away.
Are you suggesting that the shape of a USB charger is a functional attribute and therefore patentable? Let me guess...you have a job as a patent examiner.
Yeah, it they had been Tea Party goons beating up homeless vets, then there would have been repeated news stories about how the homeless people had egged on the non-violent Tea Party demonstrators by repeatedly bashing their faces into the demonstrators fists.
The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.
That's funny, because if it was 2009 and ten armed retired red necks were spitting on homeless vets outside the White House while complaining about non-existing socialism as a means to prevent health care reform it would have gotten 24 hour a day coverage from every news network and would have been presented as a well reasoned argument about the form of our government.
Slashdot Mirror
This is standard for people at Princeton. They need to think they're first, and that it's a big step. From the looks of eprints.org it looks like Princeton is the 50th university in the United States to adopt an open access policy. Case Western Reserve's open access policy dates back to June of 2005.
Is a waver to that rule going to be granted to any conference proceeding published by Princeton University Press? Or are they going to make all their conference proceedings open access as well?
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
We've already demolished your "theory" that temperatures have been falling. We demolish it 3 times a week. Temperatures are only falling if you pick outlier years as your starting and ending points or just plain ignore the data. Temperatures have been climbing steadily. Humans are responsible for significantly more than half of that.
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Didn't we just go through this one as well? This is more proof that you're not interested in reality, you're just trying to convince people who don't know the science that you could be right. First, you're assuming that because the word "optimum" is there, that somehow conditions world wide would be better that it is now. And to some extent you are right, but not because of temperature, because of stability. The climate was stable during the Holocene Optimum, and somewhat cooler than it is now. There was also an increase in humidity that restricted the growth of desert regions. There is no reason to believe the erratic climate we're creating will result in any wide spread benefits both because there won't be stability. There also won't be uniform increases or decreases in temperature across the globe. The medieval warm period isn't even worth mentioning because it was a regional effect, not a global one, so overall heat and moisture flows were probably not significantly different from the usual patterns.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
You haven't been paying attention. The natural forcings have been decreasing at about -0.05C/decade in that time. That makes humans responsible for 0.18C per decade in your estimate. Currently that's more like 0.23C per decade.
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.
As soon as you demonstrate what benefit we could have had if it had gone up .64C in the past 50 years. In either case, it's beside the point. I don't need to prove the a hand grenade will damage a tank to show that a 500 pound bomb will.
As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm
That's funny, because that article pretty convincingly shows that something besides climate was driving crop yields from 1950 to 1997. I know you're not stupid enough to miss that.
Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Nothing at Watts' site should ever be confused with objective science. It's often real science reported in a biased manner to make a point that isn't supported by the data. Hurricane activity is a regional effect that is not directly linked to global temperature. They also are not modeled in global climate models. They depend on small scale details of winds and ocean surface temperatures. Gr
Ooh, a moron that can build a straw man and then knock it down. If you want to throw in an inflation correction and then tax the difference as normal income, that's fine by me. I don't happen to have any investments that I've held for 30 years that have merely doubled, other than ones that actually have paid dividends (rather than ripping off the shareholders by letting their executives swim in cash while returning nothing to the shareholders) Maybe you should sell investments that lose money rather than hold them for 30 years.
And this coming from someone who doesn't understand science well enough to know that looking for alien transmitters is different from believing that they exist. In other words, you are both imbecilic and uneducated. And I'm guessing ugly, too.
Yeah, because private health care is working just great in America. And the universal models in other countries suck so much. The struggle with public services in America is primarily due to people who think it's a great idea to pull resources out of the public services and give them to private service provider who do less at higher cost. And, of course, due to privatization of services, that results in at best in adequate or nonexistent services and at worst theft of public resources for profit motive.
What the GP left out is that this increase has already been taxed at the corporate tax rate. Capital gains tax is levied on top of the taxes already paid on the corporation's profits.
Not really. There's no double taxation involved in capital gains because share are not priced at the book value of the company. In addition the shareholders of a corporation and the corporation itself are separate entities.
You're assuming that the change in share value is related to profit (change in book value). It is not. Share price is related to estimates of future profit far more than it is to book value and current profit. If it weren't then shares would always be required to trade at book value.
Suppose you bought a share in a company that was worth 10 billion dollars (book) and was making 1 billion dollars a year in profit after 300 million in taxes. When you bought shares were $100 and there was no growth projected. After 1 year, you'd expect the company to be worth 11 billion dollars (book). What would that mean for your shares? $110? Probably not, book value went up, but return on investment dropped from 10% to 9%. The stock price may stay around $100. So, no connection between the corporate tax and your capital gains if you sell.
Now lets say the scenario is the same, but the company gets a long term contract that doubles its profits in the coming year ad infinitum. That will also double its corporate taxes in the future. None of the other numbers change. Share price? It'll probably end up at near $200. That's a $100 per capital gain if you sell. But the corporate tax didn't change. Again capital gains taxes are unrelated to corporate taxes. No connection unless you're connecting them to future corporate taxes.
If you go even deeper, the buying and selling prices are already reduced for anticipated corporate taxes which essentially removes them from any gain if the tax rates are stable.
Many current (outgoing) Republicans are, above all, into building power for themselves and the Federal government.
If you think any Republicans (and any Democrats) in congress aren't into building power for themselves and the Federal government, you really are drinking the koolaid. The difference is where in the Federal Government they want to build power. The Dems tend to want to build the Federal government on the social side. The Reps want to build the Federal government on the Millitary and Law Enforcement side. A lot of the people you may think are constitutional conservatives are having wet dreams about tapping every untrusted phone in the country.
It is income, and because investment is something that we've decided we want to encourage, the tax on income from investment is lower than other income.
Yeah because we know rich people would stuff their money in their mattresses if they didn't get a tax break. Lower taxes for investment income is moronic. It doesn't encourage investment, it encourages churning. It's not a investment boost, it's a commission boost. Yet another gift to Wall Street. It's also an invitation for executives to pretend their salary is really a capital gain. The company gives options and prints shares so the execs can buy them below market and sell them at market. The corporation steals from the shareholders and gives to the executive. In the process, the executive steals from the taxpayers.
Do you seriously think that 10 percent of the population is so much smarter and harder working than the other 90?
Yes. Without any doubt.
Smarter? That's debatable. Only if you consider "smarter" to be the exact equivalent of "more able to get a high paying job." Harder working? Not a chance in hell. That's the problem with the right wing "meritocracy". The definition of merit is wealth, and the only way to determine if someone is meritorious is weather they are wealthy. And that is taken to be equivalent to "smart and hard working." Of course, by that measure, Paris Hilton is a workaholic genius, while Edward Teller was a lazy half-wit.
The first is simple. Temperatures would have to diverge significantly from the profile expected from the human caused forcings. In other words if CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures drop for an extended period of time, that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. Two solar cycles without warming, or with cooling would kill it.
The second doesn't really need to be falsified until someone provides a reason (theory or model) that indicates there is a possibility that rapid climate change over much of the earth would be a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to believe it would be, and lots of recent evidence that it won't be. Short of that, it's like asking me to prove that release of an airborne version of the AIDS virus won't lead to the Earth becoming a stabe low population/high tech paradise. I can't prove it, but that's no reason to start weaponizing AIDS. "CO2 is plant food" doesn't cut it, primarily because it doesn't appear to stimulate growth in ways that result in carbon storage.
Don't confuse him with facts.
He posts this ten times a day. Someone sent him a email saying that the Koch brothers would donate a dollar to lobotomy research every time he posts it.
That guy who pays 15% of his investment income (capital gains) already paid full income tax on the money before it was invested, when he earned it. That's why all of this Buffet stuff is a lie meant to manipulate you.
This is one reason why the right hates education. Anyone who can subtract the sales price from the amount invested can understand what a capital gain is, and can understand that tax was paid on the original investment but has not been paid on the gain. So the right would prefer a populace that can't subtract.
In other words, the capital gain is income, and should be taxed like income. And if you can't understand that, I can see why you'd vote for a tea party candidate. After all you wouldn't want anyone in office who can subtract.
How about college campuses that suppress students right wing ideas and philosophies but allow left?
That's not suppression. Right wing organizations just tend to attract fuckwads. The rest of your post is typical right wing claims of what they imagine to be oppression. "Oh the world is so unfair to rich/white/christian men. Look how the the secular government/women/minorities/universities keep us down. Good thing I'm a legacy or I never would have gotten in to an ivy league school or a good frat."
elrous0 is just upset that he got expelled from Wisconsin because he was caught pissing on the statue of Lincoln while yelling "How dare you impede the free market by freeing the slaves you damn hippy!"
Guess what water vapor does in sufficient quantity? Reflect radiation (not absorb it), called Anisotropic solar reflectance.
I think your studies are somewhat lacking. Water vapor is quite transparent to visible light. Maybe you're confusing that with reflectance of water droplets or crystals?
Yes, those are denier canards. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm The second one is so nonsensical it doesn't even require a serious response. Imagine what the planet would be like without the little bit of CO2 we have in the atmosphere.
You two yeses are in accord with science. You first two nos are a denial of scientific fact. Your third no makes absolutely no sense, but is also a denial of science.
Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.
I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.
Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?
Strawman and beside the point. global cooling was never a widely accepted theory
Climate change is a cop out, the climate has been changing for all of recorded history!
Also beside the point. Climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This change is dues to human CO2 emissions.
The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits
Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.
It's funny, but it could use some polishing. First, everyone knows that the proper redneck tea party misspelling is "morans". Keep on with it though, and I'm sure that you'll be ready for a failed bid on America's Got Talent.
Freedom from the need to listen to someone who has ignored most of the last 400 years of history is also on that list.
We mandate that hospitals provide care to everyone regardless of ability to pay. This just mandates that everyone at least provide some payment toward that end in an inefficient way. The optimal way would be, of course, to use tax dollars to provide health care to everyone. Then nobody needs to buy anything, and the problem that is health insurance companies goes away.
Are you suggesting that the shape of a USB charger is a functional attribute and therefore patentable? Let me guess...you have a job as a patent examiner.
Yeah, it they had been Tea Party goons beating up homeless vets, then there would have been repeated news stories about how the homeless people had egged on the non-violent Tea Party demonstrators by repeatedly bashing their faces into the demonstrators fists.
The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.
That's funny, because if it was 2009 and ten armed retired red necks were spitting on homeless vets outside the White House while complaining about non-existing socialism as a means to prevent health care reform it would have gotten 24 hour a day coverage from every news network and would have been presented as a well reasoned argument about the form of our government.
Go figure.
Yeah, because professors are supposed to give their work away for free, but someone who wrote a song once is supposed to get paid forever.