Wow. AC ignores everything because he doesn't like the message! the study was published in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, was written by Drs. Christ and McNider, and 100% funded by US Department of Energy money, allocated in 2016. But hey - denier! Easy label to toss out when you don't like the data...
Yes, pity for you that he is right. China LOVES to trumpet when it does something "good" in one little corner, but ignores all the "bad" it does everywhere else. Living there for 6 years, you get used to seeing how Beijing will use a singular, small initiative to claim it is doing something - and continue to not apply that initiative in 95% of the country.
For example, China claims that air pollution is getting much better. But independent measurements show a drastic difference. Go to Ningbo in the summer. Wonder why the official temperature is never over 44, even though your calibrated thermometer shows 46 or 47? Because if the official temperature is 45 or higher, then factories must have air conditioning installed. So thus, the official temperature never is above 44 - even if outside it is well above that.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about half to one third of what the IPCC models claim it is. That's what the actual data says. Nobody is denying that CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas", just that it is not the most dominant one (water vapor and methane trounce it) and that its impact is vastly overrated (this study, for one). However, it's easy to regulate economies based upon their CO2 emissions, so it is convenient to force massive wealth transfers, such as the Paris Accord was to do (where China, the leading emitter of CO2, got to get away with just saying it will address the CO2 issue in 2030 - not that it will start now, or do anything after 2030, just consider it).
So - the data doesn't show it, but models predict it. That's kind of the GP's point - the models, so far, have not been confirmed by the actual data. So why do we keep relying upon them?
What is different is it's been 5-6 years for a big burn on VTA (I live just south, can see the smoke in the hills). So because it's not been part of the annual fire/Santa Ana events for the last few years (but was regular before that), it is now unique. Remember, history only goes back a few years at most!
Yep. I know the quote. And I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool partisan liberal, and understand he wasn't saying you're either an investor or a gambler. But that, typically, those who blow all their money are not affected by the estate tax - and those that tend to invest (how many multi-millionaires do you know that don't have investments and 401Ks?) are overwhelmingly affected by the estate tax. But hey - partisanship! Hurray!
Nope. I got it right. The top 10% pay 90% of the Estate taxes (meaning some below that level are also paying). It's not impossible to amass an estate of more than $5 million. Say your family bought a few homes, 40 years ago, in East Santa Monica. Now that is worth $3MM right there. Add in a couple of good 401Ks and you have a net worth beyond $5.5MM. And now you get to pay taxes on that.
I think the Senator's point was that - those who would normally be hit with an estate tax (those in the top 10%) tend to actually invest their funds. Most of these silly purchases you see are typically by those without the means to really afford such spending, long-term. How many multi-millionaires that actually earned their money by typically building small businesses or investing in tangible assets (real estate) will, as they are contemplating the passing of their assets to their heirs, go "ooh, shiny Ethereum kittehs!"?
My cats love to eat meat, drink the juice from the tuna can, and lick leftover bones. They are also smart enough to not bother us during dinner, and wait to see IF we choose the share. No whining, no begging.
Dogs have twice as many neurons, but 75% of their neurons are wired to think only about "sniff the butt, sniff the butt, chase the stick, chase the stick"...
Dogs need walkers to keep them from running away and getting lost. You can let a cat out, it'll wander all over the neighborhood during the day - and find its way home at night. Dogs don't need a walker - they need a human GPS system.
Make ONE association of a transaction to an individual, and then you have ALL transactions that individual has ever made, all recorded. It won't just be a single year that can be checked, it will be all years, from any source. The fatal flaw of blockchain is that all transactions are 100% traceable, and each transaction uses an identifer that is unque - and consistent - to a single user. Crack that association once - and it's cracked for all time, past, present and future. Cash is still anonymous...
AND - here you go. The IRS will go straight to the BTC vendors and demand records. They find out you didn't report? Well - fraud charges, penalties, back taxes, Federal PMITA prison...
That time period doesn't count if it's a fraudulent filing. Like willfully failing to report income, like in this case. There is no statute of limitations for fraud. SOURCE
Better than President Obama's policy of strategic patience, where you simply wait until the other side has violated every condition and exhausted all your options. Then it's too late, and it's now called strategic neglect. Ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away usually doesn't work in real life...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. AC ignores everything because he doesn't like the message! the study was published in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, was written by Drs. Christ and McNider, and 100% funded by US Department of Energy money, allocated in 2016. But hey - denier! Easy label to toss out when you don't like the data...
China emits twice the amount of CO2 as the US. Increasing coal for electricity would further up that number. Yes, the same old bullshit, indeed!
Yes, pity for you that he is right. China LOVES to trumpet when it does something "good" in one little corner, but ignores all the "bad" it does everywhere else. Living there for 6 years, you get used to seeing how Beijing will use a singular, small initiative to claim it is doing something - and continue to not apply that initiative in 95% of the country.
For example, China claims that air pollution is getting much better. But independent measurements show a drastic difference. Go to Ningbo in the summer. Wonder why the official temperature is never over 44, even though your calibrated thermometer shows 46 or 47? Because if the official temperature is 45 or higher, then factories must have air conditioning installed. So thus, the official temperature never is above 44 - even if outside it is well above that.
But that would take up valuable real estate! How else can we keep "green cities" like San Francisco well below the per-capita average of trees?
What data is there to push the anthropomorphic global climate change concept? Actual real data, not output from models. Because the actual data shows sea level changes incredibly linear for the last ~150 years, the actual warming being a lot less than the models predict, and the modeled sensitivity of climate to CO2 levels being a factor of 2 to 3 too high
If we're past the tipping point, than ANYONE'S use of oil is a non-issue; it's already too late. Logic fail.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about half to one third of what the IPCC models claim it is. That's what the actual data says. Nobody is denying that CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas", just that it is not the most dominant one (water vapor and methane trounce it) and that its impact is vastly overrated (this study, for one). However, it's easy to regulate economies based upon their CO2 emissions, so it is convenient to force massive wealth transfers, such as the Paris Accord was to do (where China, the leading emitter of CO2, got to get away with just saying it will address the CO2 issue in 2030 - not that it will start now, or do anything after 2030, just consider it).
So - the data doesn't show it, but models predict it. That's kind of the GP's point - the models, so far, have not been confirmed by the actual data. So why do we keep relying upon them?
Funny, we just ended an 11 streak of no hurricanes in the US. Tornado activity continues to trend down. Antarctica is accumulating snow and ice mass faster than it's losing it. Methane has been increasing steadily since the 50s and Russia, the source of that permafrost was massively down in the 2000s, and still not close to the peak back in 1990. So that's all four of four of your "checked" predictions that are actual failures, not successes.
What is different is it's been 5-6 years for a big burn on VTA (I live just south, can see the smoke in the hills). So because it's not been part of the annual fire/Santa Ana events for the last few years (but was regular before that), it is now unique. Remember, history only goes back a few years at most!
So it has an integrated Tile beacon in it? That, plus a switch (open/close sensor) would to it all!
Yep. I know the quote. And I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool partisan liberal, and understand he wasn't saying you're either an investor or a gambler. But that, typically, those who blow all their money are not affected by the estate tax - and those that tend to invest (how many multi-millionaires do you know that don't have investments and 401Ks?) are overwhelmingly affected by the estate tax. But hey - partisanship! Hurray!
Nope. I got it right. The top 10% pay 90% of the Estate taxes (meaning some below that level are also paying). It's not impossible to amass an estate of more than $5 million. Say your family bought a few homes, 40 years ago, in East Santa Monica. Now that is worth $3MM right there. Add in a couple of good 401Ks and you have a net worth beyond $5.5MM. And now you get to pay taxes on that.
Apparently, he does - since you refused to actually read what he said, and simply want to push your class-warfare nonsense...
From your comments, we can assume you own nothing tangible? That you give everything away for fear of being called a "hoarder"?
I think the Senator's point was that - those who would normally be hit with an estate tax (those in the top 10%) tend to actually invest their funds. Most of these silly purchases you see are typically by those without the means to really afford such spending, long-term. How many multi-millionaires that actually earned their money by typically building small businesses or investing in tangible assets (real estate) will, as they are contemplating the passing of their assets to their heirs, go "ooh, shiny Ethereum kittehs!"?
At least with tulips you can get a half-dozen good blooms over 6 years...
My cats love to eat meat, drink the juice from the tuna can, and lick leftover bones. They are also smart enough to not bother us during dinner, and wait to see IF we choose the share. No whining, no begging.
Dogs have twice as many neurons, but 75% of their neurons are wired to think only about "sniff the butt, sniff the butt, chase the stick, chase the stick"...
Dogs need walkers to keep them from running away and getting lost. You can let a cat out, it'll wander all over the neighborhood during the day - and find its way home at night. Dogs don't need a walker - they need a human GPS system.
Have you ever been to Redmond campus? It's huge, and I'd wager than 70% of all housing within 1 mile of Microsoft is Microsoft staff...
Make ONE association of a transaction to an individual, and then you have ALL transactions that individual has ever made, all recorded. It won't just be a single year that can be checked, it will be all years, from any source. The fatal flaw of blockchain is that all transactions are 100% traceable, and each transaction uses an identifer that is unque - and consistent - to a single user. Crack that association once - and it's cracked for all time, past, present and future. Cash is still anonymous ...
AND - here you go. The IRS will go straight to the BTC vendors and demand records. They find out you didn't report? Well - fraud charges, penalties, back taxes, Federal PMITA prison...
That time period doesn't count if it's a fraudulent filing. Like willfully failing to report income, like in this case. There is no statute of limitations for fraud. SOURCE
Better than President Obama's policy of strategic patience, where you simply wait until the other side has violated every condition and exhausted all your options. Then it's too late, and it's now called strategic neglect. Ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away usually doesn't work in real life...