PDA

View Full Version : Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday


UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-24-2013, 07:52 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/


Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.
On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled.
“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”
In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.
“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”
But no one seems to have a conclusive answer as to why winds are behaving this way.
“I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger,” Zhang told Michael Lemonick of Climate Central.
Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).
“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.
A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.
If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.
“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.
However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.
Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.
Related: Arctic sea ice has *not* recovered, in 7 visuals
Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.
“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/09/S_bm_extent.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/09/S_stddev_timeseries.png


How ooooppps do you guys get?

Rohirrim
09-24-2013, 07:56 AM
So?

W*GS
09-24-2013, 07:59 AM
No "ooooppps". Clearly didn't read the article.

An increase in Antarctic sea ice as AGW takes place was noted by Manabe et.al. back in 1991.

Antarctic Sea Ice Gain (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/antarctic-sea-ice-gain/) is a good brief introduction and analysis.

Of course, science is wasted on UHW/S.

W*GS
09-24-2013, 08:37 AM
<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/75000023" width="500" height="375" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/75000023">What keeps a climate scientist up at night?</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/theclimateinstitute">The Climate Institute</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-24-2013, 09:25 AM
None of your models prodicted this. That's how you know its not science.

Rigs11
09-24-2013, 09:33 AM
Phew.. I'm glad that 's over. Glad that we don't have to worry about climate change anymore. Thanks bobo.Hilarious!I'm gonna go buy an excursion now.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 09:34 AM
No "ooooppps". Clearly didn't read the article.

An increase in Antarctic sea ice as AGW takes place was noted by Manabe et.al. back in 1991.

Antarctic Sea Ice Gain (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/antarctic-sea-ice-gain/) is a good brief introduction and analysis.

Of course, science is wasted on UHW/S.

Der "Science" is always right with the help of selection bias, amirite, Wagsy?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/08/27/203015/right-for-27-years-1981-hansen-study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels/

Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

-Father Hansen and friends, 30 years ago.

houghtam
09-24-2013, 09:55 AM
Der "Science" is always right with the help of selection bias, amirite, Wagsy?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/08/27/203015/right-for-27-years-1981-hansen-study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels/



-Father Hansen and friends, 30 years ago.

Uhh Here we go again. What are your qualifications dill weed?

Derp.

Rohirrim
09-24-2013, 10:01 AM
Der "Science" is always right with the help of selection bias, amirite, Wagsy?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/08/27/203015/right-for-27-years-1981-hansen-study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels/



-Father Hansen and friends, 30 years ago.

There do appear to be permanent drought-prone regions establishing in NA and central Asia, the Northwest Passage, for all intents and purposes, is open, and the only reason the Antarctic Sea Ice isn't melting as fast as predicted is because of either unforeseen wind patterns caused by warming water, or a reduction in the ozone hole. So? ???

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 10:07 AM
Uhh Here we go again. What are your qualifications dill weed?

Derp.

From the original WaPo article:

Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

By Houghtam's law of infallible credential, you are not qualified to argue. Your silence will be enjoyed. LOL

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 10:12 AM
There do appear to be permanent drought-prone regions establishing in NA and central Asia, the Northwest Passage, for all intents and purposes, is open, and the only reason the Antarctic Sea Ice isn't melting as fast as predicted is because of either unforeseen wind patterns caused by warming water, or a reduction in the ozone hole. So? ???

I don't know about permanent. The real point here though is even when Wagsys beloved consensus fails to account for one observation or another, his first reaction is to scan the archives for some obscure non-consensus opinion to paste over inadequate modeling and pretend like the science is always right. When the real answer is that things are much more complex than their models can accurately account for.

Or to think about it another way. Wagsy's playing a sciency game of "Med called it" :)

W*GS
09-24-2013, 10:13 AM
None of your models prodicted this. That's how you know its not science.

Wrong.

Manabe et.al. found in 1989 that increasing CO2 in their model increased Antarctic sea ice extent.

What's happening now was predicted by a model over 20 years ago.

W*GS
09-24-2013, 10:15 AM
I don't know about permanent. The real point here though is even when Wagsys beloved consensus fails to account for one observation or another, his first reaction is to scan the archives for some obscure non-consensus opinion to paste over inadequate modeling and pretend like the science is always right. When the real answer is that things are much more complex than their models can accurately account for.

You really don't want to admit that climate science is far more right than wrong, and what you often call "wrong" is actually "inexact", which is your excuse that AGW isn't an issue and we should just merrily continue business-as-usual.

You're in a very deep state of denial.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 10:27 AM
You really don't want to admit that climate science is far more right than wrong, and what you often call "wrong" is actually "inexact", which is your excuse that AGW isn't an issue and we should just merrily continue business-as-usual.

You're in a very deep state of denial.

Let's not pretend like this failed 'consensus' Antarctic Ice prediction is happening in a vacuum. It's happening alongside a completely unmodeled, unpredicted and unexplained decade+ hiatus in global temperature increase. That much is clear.

Anyway, would you characterize the Manabe model as being the most accurate climate model up to this point?

Garcia Bronco
09-24-2013, 10:40 AM
LOL..."Climate science"...you mean physics.

Requiem
09-24-2013, 10:56 AM
Does this mean winter is coming?

W*GS
09-24-2013, 10:56 AM
Let's not pretend like this failed 'consensus' Antarctic Ice prediction is happening in a vacuum.

The science isn't solid because of consensus (which doesn't mean unanimity). The consensus exists because the science is solid.

It's happening alongside a completely unmodeled, unpredicted and unexplained decade+ hiatus in global temperature increase. That much is clear.

A "hiatus" period hasn't been unmodeled or unpredicted. You still don't get how climate models work. They will never match observations exactly. They will get the statistics of the period in question more-or-less correct.

Anyway, would you characterize the Manabe model as being the most accurate climate model up to this point?

From 1989? Of course not. But your argument than an increase in Antarctic sea ice was never modeled and was thus completely unknown as a result of AGW is entirely false.

W*GS
09-24-2013, 10:56 AM
LOL..."Climate science"...you mean physics.

Indeed. The folks who dismiss climate science as a junk science means that they dismiss physics as junk as well.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 12:10 PM
A "hiatus" period hasn't been unmodeled or unpredicted. You still don't get how climate models work. They will never match observations exactly. They will get the statistics of the period in question more-or-less correct.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

From 1989? Of course not. But your argument than an increase in Antarctic sea ice was never modeled and was thus completely unknown as a result of AGW is entirely false.

I get it. So older models are less accurate. Unless they get something right. In which case you borrow that part, slather it over the part the newer 'consensus' models got wrong. And then say that it's proof of something, so we must change everything.

W*GS
09-24-2013, 01:17 PM
[...]

Does von Storch believe AGW is incorrect, or isn't happening? Describe his views, please.

I get it. So older models are less accurate. Unless they get something right. In which case you borrow that part, slather it over the part the newer 'consensus' models got wrong. And then say that it's proof of something, so we must change everything.

Your argument was that increasing Antarctic sea ice was completely unforeseen. Not at all true.

Note also that sea ice and land ice are two different things - Antarctic land ice is decreasing, and at an apparently increasing rate.

Try presenting something original instead of just parroting (truly, in that you have no clue as to the underlying science) what you read in the denier blogosphere.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 01:23 PM
Does von Storch believe AGW is incorrect, or isn't happening? Describe his views, please.

Do I? Describe my views, please.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-24-2013, 01:33 PM
Wrong.

Manabe et.al. found in 1989 that increasing CO2 in their model increased Antarctic sea ice extent.

What's happening now was predicted by a model over 20 years ago.

Sure. Then why did your God Algore predict opposite?

W*GS
09-24-2013, 01:35 PM
Sure. Then why did your God Algore predict opposite?

Did he?

W*GS
09-24-2013, 01:37 PM
Do I? Describe my views, please.

One or more of the following:
1) AGW isn't happening
2) If it's warming, it's all the sun (and we got nothing to do with it)
3) If it's warming, we're only a small part of it
4) If it's warming and we're the cause, the impacts will be minor
5) If it's warming the causes and effects are so complicated and uncertain that there's nothing worth doing so **** it
5) If it's warming and the impacts on us will be serious, there's nothing we can do about it so **** it

If none of the above are true, tell me what you think.

houghtam
09-24-2013, 01:44 PM
One or more of the following:
1) AGW isn't happening
2) If it's warming, it's all the sun (and we got nothing to do with it)
3) If it's warming, we're only a small part of it
4) If it's warming and we're the cause, the impacts will be minor
5) If it's warming the causes and effects are so complicated and uncertain that there's nothing worth doing so **** it
5) If it's warming and the impacts on us will be serious, there's nothing we can do about it so **** it

If none of the above are true, tell me what you think.

PIKEW! In 3...2...1...

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 02:15 PM
One or more of the following:
1) AGW isn't happening
2) If it's warming, it's all the sun (and we got nothing to do with it)
3) If it's warming, we're only a small part of it
4) If it's warming and we're the cause, the impacts will be minor
5) If it's warming the causes and effects are so complicated and uncertain that there's nothing worth doing so **** it
5) If it's warming and the impacts on us will be serious, there's nothing we can do about it so **** it

If none of the above are true, tell me what you think.

Your problem is in the way you phrase all of them. Your view is far too cut and dried.

I'd say 3, 4, and 5 are all possibilities. Possibilities that aren't fully substantiated.

Sensitivity is still an open question. And you're not going to accomplish anything significant enough on the carbon front in the short-term to render that question moot anyway. You could erect a massive bureaucracy to tax American carbon tomorrow. And it would have next to zero impact on global emissions. All the growth is coming elsewhere.

It's a problem that can't be solved quickly. Or completely in any sense. But until we're more sure about what the real world consequences will look like, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to unilaterally do.

W*GS
09-24-2013, 02:32 PM
Your problem is in the way you phrase all of them. Your view is far too cut and dried.

I'd say 3, 4, and 5 are all possibilities. Possibilities that aren't fully substantiated.

At least you recognize that 1) and 2) are bull****.

3) and 4) aren't supported by the science. 4) is partially a policy question, in that 4) assumes that even if continue with business-as-usual, we have nothing to worry about.

3) and 4) are also crap, but not the level of the bull**** of 1) and 2).

Sensitivity is still an open question.

If you mean ECS, then that's in a relatively narrow range - and the odds of it being at the low end (i.e., Lindzen) end of the range are very small.

And you're not going to accomplish anything significant enough on the carbon front in the short-term to render that question moot anyway. You could erect a massive bureaucracy to tax American carbon tomorrow. And it would have next to zero impact on global emissions. All the growth is coming elsewhere.

A rehash of 5) and my (mislabeled) 6).

It's a problem that can't be solved quickly. Or completely in any sense. But until we're more sure about what the real world consequences will look like, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to unilaterally do.

My (mislabeled) 6).

In other words, "**** it" is your view.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 02:35 PM
In other words, "**** it" is your view.

It's a tough call between War with China or "**** it" :)

W*GS
09-24-2013, 05:39 PM
It's a tough call between War with China or "**** it" :)

Why does mitigating AGW require war with China?

Or are you just tossing off and demonstrating that you're doing so?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-25-2013, 07:23 PM
Why does mitigating AGW require war with China?

Or are you just tossing off and demonstrating that you're doing so?

You're such a hypocrite. I post about China's pollution and you are completely silent. You just highlight stuff about the evil USA.

houghtam
09-25-2013, 07:38 PM
You're such a hypocrite. I post about China's pollution and you are completely silent. You just highlight stuff about the evil USA.

You ever consider that he doesn't respond to you because you're a mental midget?

Bronco Yoda
09-26-2013, 12:01 PM
It's HAARP! :)

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 12:41 PM
Phew.. I'm glad that 's over. Glad that we don't have to worry about climate change anymore. Thanks bobo.Hilarious!I'm gonna go buy an excursion now.


If your going to spend that much go ahead and get the Cadillac Platinum Escalade, I bought one for my wife and it almost drives itself. The Escalade only gets 14.8 mpg but worth every penny when you look down at a prius driver.

Requiem
09-26-2013, 02:18 PM
You ever consider that he doesn't respond to you because you're a mental midget?

http://images.4chan.org/pol/src/1380229395027.jpg

:)

W*GS
09-26-2013, 02:45 PM
If your going to spend that much go ahead and get the Cadillac Platinum Escalade, I bought one for my wife and it almost drives itself. The Escalade only gets 14.8 mpg but worth every penny when you look down at a prius driver.

Here's Pony Boy to the world...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1367963412_middle_finger.png

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 03:01 PM
derp

Final verdict expected Friday: Humans caused global warming

An international panel of scientists is expected to issue a report Friday that dismisses nearly every doubt that human activity has caused temperatures to warm, glaciers to melt, and seas to bulge since the middle of last century. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise precipitously, the report will warn, there will be catastrophic consequences. Whether these strong words will be met with meaningful response is another matter.

The scientists with the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been working behind closed doors in Stockholm, Sweden, this week to hammer out the exact wording of the report, though experts anticipate little departure from the main messages contained in a draft that was leaked to the media in August.

The report is a synthesis of climate research written by more than 800 scientists. It is expected to say a human influence on the global climate is "extremely likely," language that corresponds to odds of 95 percent. That's up from the "very likely" language used in the 2007 assessment, which corresponds to 90 percent odds.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/final-verdict-expected-friday-humans-caused-global-warming-8C11266754#

Fedaykin
09-26-2013, 03:11 PM
If your going to spend that much go ahead and get the Cadillac Platinum Escalade, I bought one for my wife and it almost drives itself. The Escalade only gets 14.8 mpg but worth every penny when you look down at a prius driver.

I suggest you probably should consult with a plastic surgeon to address the root of your insecurities instead of blowing money on a gas hog.

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 03:19 PM
I suggest you probably should consult with a plastic surgeon to address the root of your insecurities instead of blowing money on a gas hog.

he's old, why should he care if the planet goes to hell?

houghtam
09-26-2013, 03:26 PM
I suggest you probably should consult with a plastic surgeon to address the root of your insecurities instead of blowing money on a gas hog.

Or he could just buy a bigger gun.

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 06:56 PM
I suggest you probably should consult with a plastic surgeon to address the root of your insecurities instead of blowing money on a gas hog.

No I didn't blow any money, a few years ago I took advantage of the Section 179 was often referred to as the "SUV Tax ... It allowed me to take a 100% write-off for a new heavy SUV (loaded gross vehicle weight greater than 6,000 pounds) through the use of the bonus depreciation rules in 2011. As a mater of fact I also write-off every gallon of gas I put in my vehicles. Is this a great country or what?

Fedaykin
09-26-2013, 07:13 PM
No I didn't blow any money, a few years ago I took advantage of the Section 179 was often referred to as the "SUV Tax ... It allowed me to take a 100% write-off for a new heavy SUV (loaded gross vehicle weight greater than 6,000 pounds) through the use of the bonus depreciation rules in 2011. As a mater of fact I also write-off every gallon of gas I put in my vehicles. Is this a great country or what?

And surely you only did that for vehicles used 100% for your business, as that tax break stipulates, right?


And also fun to watch you brag about a ~$70,000 tax write off on a luxury vehicle (for "business purposes") while also constantly complaining about how much you are taxed. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

houghtam
09-26-2013, 07:22 PM
And surely you only did that for vehicles used 100% for your business, as that tax break stipulates, right?


And also fun to watch you brag about a ~$70,000 tax write off on a luxury vehicle (for "business purposes") while also constantly complaining about how much you are taxed. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Ain't this country great? :)

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 08:13 PM
And surely you only did that for vehicles used 100% for your business, as that tax break stipulates, right?


And also fun to watch you brag about a ~$70,000 tax write off on a luxury vehicle (for "business purposes") while also constantly complaining about how much you are taxed. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

I have a CPA that keeps a business log book for every vehicle I own as required by the IRS.

Yes, I will always complain about how much I pay in taxes and I take advantage of every write-off and investment opportunity available if it will reduce my tax liability. I didn't write the tax code and I don't see the Obama administration making any major changes to them, so it will be business as usual for the next four years.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
09-26-2013, 08:44 PM
You ever consider that he doesn't respond to you because you're a mental midget?

That what a hypocrite would do and you should know. LOL

houghtam
09-26-2013, 09:46 PM
I have a CPA that keeps a business log book for every vehicle I own as required by the IRS.

Yes, I will always complain about how much I pay in taxes and I take advantage of every write-off and investment opportunity available if it will reduce my tax liability. I didn't write the tax code and I don't see the Obama administration making any major changes to them, so it will be business as usual for the next four years.

So your wife works for you now?

barryr
09-27-2013, 06:30 AM
You ever consider that he doesn't respond to you because you're a mental midget?

Oh, the irony ROFL!

Pony Boy
09-27-2013, 07:41 AM
So your wife works for you now?

No, we are co-owners of a family owned business and investment trust that we built together.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

If you owned a business would you heir a CPA or tax consultant to help you manage your investments. Would you expect him to search for every possible deduction and tax advantage program that is available or would you tell him just to take 40% off the top and send it in to the IRS so the Fed’s can spend it wisely?

Also if a man and his wife are planning their future retirement should they apply for and draw 20K plus a year each a year in social security benefits even if it's not needed to maintain their current lifestyle during retirement?

houghtam
09-27-2013, 09:29 AM
Also if a man and his wife are planning their future retirement should they apply for and draw 20K plus a year each a year in social security benefits even if it's not needed to maintain their current lifestyle during retirement?

Well, yeah...if you want to be labeled a government mooch.

Run along now, old man...I think I see Corey Feldman, River Phoenix, Will Wheaton and that fat kid running through your "place of business".

Chopper! Sick balls!

LOL

Rigs11
09-27-2013, 09:34 AM
Pony boy likes the gubmint teet except for others that need food stamps or healthcare

BroncoBeavis
09-27-2013, 09:38 AM
Well, yeah...if you want to be labeled a government mooch.

Run along now, old man...I think I see Corey Feldman, River Phoenix, Will Wheaton and that fat kid running through your "place of business".

Chopper! Sick balls!

LOL

Interesting World View.

Just as all data belongs to NSA... all money belongs to the IRS.

Whatever you maneuver to keep, you are leaching.
Whatever you are allowed to keep, you are granted.

All Hail the State.

houghtam
09-27-2013, 09:40 AM
Interesting World View.

Just as all data belongs to NSA... all money belongs to the IRS.

Whatever you maneuver to keep, you are leaching.
Whatever you are allowed to keep, you are granted.

All Hail the State.

Oh I forgot, you're the guy who has to type "/sarc" every time he makes a sarcastic remark.

Based on this post, I'm not sure if it's because you're afraid others won't realize it, or if you'll forget it yourself when re-reading your posts.

Uhh

BroncoBeavis
09-27-2013, 09:42 AM
Oh I forgot, you're the guy who has to type "/sarc" every time he makes a sarcastic remark.

Based on this post, I'm not sure if it's because you're afraid others won't realize it, or if you'll forget it yourself when re-reading your posts.

Uhh

No worries on this post. You don't have to wonder.

Pony Boy
09-27-2013, 09:58 AM
Well, yeah...if you want to be labeled a government mooch.

Do you think all the money they paid in over the years belongs to the Federal Government?

So what you are saying is if they draw out their money they are mooching off the government?

Are you really that stupid?

W*GS
09-27-2013, 10:02 AM
The usual right-wing diversion tactic at work...

Pony Boy
09-27-2013, 10:08 AM
Pony boy likes the gubmint teet except for others that need food stamps or healthcare

So, you also believe that what you have paid into Social Security belongs to the government and if you live long enough they might let you draw some of their money.

I bet you also believe that people that have never paid into the fund should be able to draw some 'gubmint teet" also ........right?

TonyR
09-27-2013, 01:01 PM
Re the new IPCC report:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/leading-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-mother-of-all-climate-reports/280045/

http://qz.com/129122/the-worlds-best-scientists-agree-on-our-current-path-global-warming-is-irreversible-and-getting-worse/

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/ipcc-climate-report-scary-conclusions

W*GS
09-27-2013, 06:19 PM
No matter how solid the science, the right will never accept it.

Fedaykin
10-01-2013, 02:21 PM
No, we are co-owners of a family owned business and investment trust that we built together.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

If you owned a business would you heir a CPA or tax consultant to help you manage your investments. Would you expect him to search for every possible deduction and tax advantage program that is available or would you tell him just to take 40% off the top and send it in to the IRS so the Fed’s can spend it wisely?

Also if a man and his wife are planning their future retirement should they apply for and draw 20K plus a year each a year in social security benefits even if it's not needed to maintain their current lifestyle during retirement?

There's a difference between legal and ethical.

The tax rebate you are so proud of is there to help small businesses buy equipment they need to run their business (i.e., large trucks that are actually used to do actual, real work), not buy themselves a toy while evading taxes.

Whether or not you stayed on the right side of the law, you've blown right past the ethical line. People like you are why eventually those sorts of tax breaks gets cut and people who actually have a legit need for them get harmed.

In other words, you're part of the problem.