Irrelevant. The fact is that virtually no one paid that rate (so nothing was collected). People either hide money or earn less when the tax rate is confiscatory. It really doesn't take much of an increase in the rate for people to decide that their time is worth more than what they would earn for themselves. This has been shown *many* times throughout history.
There is to much spin in the climate date. One of the "facts' they use in promoting their religion is the pH of the oceans are going down because of the increase in Carbon Dioxide. This "fact" was based on the observation that there was a decrease in the pH of about 0.06 units, The standards they used of make the measurements are guaranteed by the vendor to be =/-0.05. That makes their "fact" bogus.
They talk about the climate change of 0.1 degrees. There is no statistical method for evaluating date the would call that a change with on any day of the year, the temperatures taken all over the earth will vary over 100 degrees. (-40F at the winter pole to 130F in the equatorial deserts. For a change to be significant by a simple T test the change has to be greater the about 3 times the standard deviation of the measurements. If the global warning people presented a data set like this for drug approval they would be laughed out of the office.
I also like the studies on hurricanes that make the statement that the number of hurricanes have been increasing since the 1970, The low point in the Hurricane cycle which is based on the hurricane counts for several hundred years.
I was really impressed when the global warmer on a ship trapped in the summer ice in Antarctic told the people suffering in one of the coldest winters in recent history, that they should still being prepared to face the global warming.
Finally if you leave the Global warming religion and look at other field you will find the long term studies do not support the global warming data. This is one recent study
The biggest questionable item in the data of Climate Change is comparing the data from a point that went from a rural area 50 years ago to an asphalt parking lot today. It does not take a genius to realize the Asphalt parking lot will definitely show an increase temperature when compare to its preparking lot days. Every day we pave more parking lots, build more houses with asphalt roofs, and other heat capturing structures, see the temperature change and say the carbon dioxide from a coal burning power plant is causing it.
Keith Nuttle wrote in news:lklend$v42$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
And you'd be wrong. I don't think this is the forum for political discussions - except as they affect the subject of the forum:
----------- SEATTLE Global warming is already altering forest landscapes in the U.S. Northwest, increasing wildfire risks and threatening coastal communities, according to a new federal scientific report released Tuesday.
The National Climate Assessment provides a detailed look at the regional and state-level effects of climate change. It lists key concerns for Washington, Idaho and Oregon:
Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk and insect and tree disease outbreaks, and by forcing long-term shifts in forest types and species, the report says.
Those impacts are already causing widespread tree die-offs and are certain to cause more forest die-offs by 2040.
Though wildfires are natural events in the Northwest, warmer and drier conditions have helped boost the number and extent of wildfires in U.S. Western forests since 1970s, and that trend is expected to continue.
Higher temperatures and outbreaks of mountain pine beetles, for example, area increasing pine tree die-offs in drier forests.
See also:
-------- You may deny GW, but people working in the forest are seeing it's affects. Some species of trees will no longer grow in certain areas. Replanting after clear-cut fails again and again. Sustainable harvests are moving north while southern forests don't grow as they have in the past. Etc.
Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for some lovations. Follow the money.
Follow the money.
Maybe it will maybe it will not. Follow the money.
Maybe, the prediction is so far off that those doing the predicting may not be around to answer. follow the money.
this trend has happened over and over through out the centuries followed by global cooling.
When you can't determine the reason for a problem you blame either Global Warming or Bush.
Follow the money. If money were not involved with this hype there would not be another word said about it. Global warming is extremely profitable and will continue to be as long as we try to reverse something that may not in face be a problem or even exist.
Why is the solution (to everything) higher taxes?
To support the ignoramuses that believe that the government makes money vs. taking it from us.
Socialists R us.
-------------------------------- Baxter wrote:
--------------------------------------
"Le> Forrest fires are nothing new and there will always be a first for
------------------------------------------- What money should be followed?
Lew
Global Warming
Any and all money that funds the studies. IMHO most studies will skew the results to keep the money coming in.
On Sun, 11 May 2014 01:55:25 -0500, Leon
Sure, it's possible you're right, but that's still pretty lousy way to look at it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.