Global warming LOL

[jem]

fc you deceitful troll.

There was nothing wrong with specers study.
His study used data showing air temps have not been rising even though CO2 has been rising and the failed models predicted temps should have risen.

You know damn well air temps have not risen no matter which set of data use choose.

So stop lying.


Regarding ocean temps.

Your models were not predicting ocean temps or dealing with ocean temps.

There is no science saying man made CO2 causes ocean temps to rise. Probably because oceans release co2 as their temps rise.

Good luck trying to show oceans warm themselves by releasing CO2..

fc you are a drone troll liar and and idiot.


We have been telling you and your agw whores...
that the sun and oceans influence the temps on earth far more than man made CO2.

It was assholes like you here on et that argued that virtually all the warming was from man made co2.. and you put forth these shit models and called it science... then you called us names when we told you, your models were not scientifically sound.


you are such a stupid drone... you can't even get the science or the arguments correct.

Quote from futurecurrents:

So Spency-boy publishes an obviously fraudulent chart using irrelevant data and jerm posts a copy. Then neither he or any other denier nitwit will admit to the obvious fraud. In fact jerm continues to use it support his argument which is shit also because it ignores that the oceans contain 94% of the world's heat and have variable currents and surface temperatures because of those currents.

jerm, there are these things called oceans. They have a huge influence on our climate. Maybe you didn't know that. Just because the oceans absorbed more heat than predicted over a short term, it does NOT mean the models are broken or that CO2 has ceased to be a greenhouse gas or that the earth has slowed it's warming.

 

[jem]

The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.


The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and Goerge W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can’t argue with history!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

Quote from Ricter:

We just raised taxes and revenues went... up.

I know, it seems counterintuitive! ; )

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.


The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and Goerge W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can’t argue with history!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

That's all well and good, but correlation is not causation.

We just raised taxes and... revenues went up.

 

[jem]

so you are saying what the tax increases this year caused revenue to go up last year?

you might want to try that with co2. you could say co2 causes temps to rise because like tax increases they are not constrained by fundamental laws such as time.

Quote from Ricter:

That's all well and good, but correlation is not causation.

We just raised taxes and... revenues went up.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

so you are saying what the tax increases this year caused revenue to go up last year?

you might want to try that with co2. you could say co2 causes temps to rise because like tax increases they are not constrained by fundamental laws such as time.

It's good I wasn't drinking a coke when I read that. I'd be wiping off my keyboard about now.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

so you are saying what the tax increases this year caused revenue to go up last year?

you might want to try that with co2. you could say co2 causes temps to rise because like tax increases they are not constrained by fundamental laws such as time.

I'm simply repeating what the CBO reported re the falling deficit.

Anyway, taxes weren't cut last year, so rising revenue was due to something else.

 

[jem]

note.... there was a payroll tax cut.

Quote from Ricter:

I'm simply repeating what the CBO reported re the falling deficit.

Anyway, taxes weren't cut last year, so rising revenue was due to something else.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

the was a payroll tax cut.

Fair enough. And it's expired. Yet, revenues are rising.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

Fair enough. And it's expired. Yet, revenues are rising.

The presidents own advisor... found this....


Romer and Romer find that despite the complexity of the legislative process, most significant tax changes have been motivated by one of four factors: counteracting other influences on the economy; paying for increases in government spending (or lowering taxes in conjunction with reductions in spending); addressing an inherited budget deficit; and promoting long-run growth. They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.

Tax changes that are made to promote long-run growth, or to reduce an inherited budget deficit, in contrast, are undertaken for reasons essentially unrelated to other factors influencing output. Thus, examining the behavior of output following these relatively exogenous tax changes is likely to provide more reliable estimates of the output effects of tax changes. The results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

The presidents own advisor... found this....


Romer and Romer find that despite the complexity of the legislative process, most significant tax changes have been motivated by one of four factors: counteracting other influences on the economy; paying for increases in government spending (or lowering taxes in conjunction with reductions in spending); addressing an inherited budget deficit; and promoting long-run growth. They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes.

Tax changes that are made to promote long-run growth, or to reduce an inherited budget deficit, in contrast, are undertaken for reasons essentially unrelated to other factors influencing output. Thus, examining the behavior of output following these relatively exogenous tax changes is likely to provide more reliable estimates of the output effects of tax changes. The results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

That's nice, but...

We just raised taxes and revenue went... up.