or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes - Page 13

post #217 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

"Proof" of man's invovlement in global warming is about as certain as the "proof" a few years ago that eating eggs causes a rise in human cholesterol.   Today, that is being disputed.

 

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

 

Approximately a billion years from now, the earth's proximity to the sun will be close enough that the heat from the sun will burn up the CO2 in our air.  Since plant life requires CO2 inorder to survive, plant life will cease to exist at that time.   We need oxygen to breathe and the main source of our atmosphere's oxygen is derived from oxygenic photosnythesis which occurs in plants.   As a result, humans will also cease to exist.    

We're talking about Bloomberg.

 

But I'll bite -- so we crap the air with pollution in the "hope" that we're not causing issues.

 

Yeah, right.

 

If you're a true conservative, you want to be conservative - you want to reduce our footprint.

 

I don't know what label to use on people who believe everything business tells them - but "fools" comes to mind.

 

Question everything and you get fooled less.

post #218 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

 

I don't know what label to use on people who believe everything business tells them - but "fools" comes to mind.

 

Question everything and you get fooled less.

That information has been printed in several scientific journals.    You were the one that brought up science and global climate change.   I suggest you look in the mirror when applying your label.

post #219 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

 

What is known is that the sun is expanding and this expansion is resulting in the earth being in closer proximity to the sun.   As our distance from the sun shrinks, the sun's heat affects the earth's weather, and as a resulte unusual weather patterns emerge.  That heat also causes the temperature at the surface of the Earth to rise, the glacier pack to melt and oceans to evaporate.  (Sounds alot like what we refer to as global warming, doesn't it?)

 

 

That has an event horizon measured in billions of years ... what is referred to as global warming is a very recent phenomenon.

 

But let's wait and see what Phil has to say about it in his next press conference. a1_smile.gif

post #220 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

That information has been printed in several scientific journals.   

 

Cite?

post #221 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

We're talking about Bloomberg.

 

But I'll bite -- so we crap the air with pollution in the "hope" that we're not causing issues.

 

Yeah, right.

 

If you're a true conservative, you want to be conservative - you want to reduce our footprint.

 

I don't know what label to use on people who believe everything business tells them - but "fools" comes to mind.

 

Question everything and you get fooled less.

 

People generally believe what is convenient, maintains the status quo, etc.

 

I live in Edmonton, and though I don't work there, I benefit greatly from the economic byproducts of the tarsands. The economy is good, unemployment is low, people spend like drunken sailors and my property values are up.

 

But I can't lie to myself, the tarsands are an environmental disaster. Far from being up in arms, I'm resigned to the reality of the situation. Maybe I'm part of the problem, but at least I'm not in denial.

 

Many people choose to be in denial.

 

My 2 cents.

post #222 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

That information has been printed in several scientific journals.    You were the one that brought up science and global climate change.   I suggest you look in the mirror when applying your label.

 

Your last sentence is nonsensical, to put it kindly, and is an emotional reaction.

 

I brought it up because Mayor Bloomberg cited climate change and indirectly, science, as the reason he endorsed Obama.

 

I said the label applied to people who believed what business told them - I have an MBA, was a CPA, worked in business  for over 30 years, and the last 20 as an attorney - I don't believe what people tell me, much less business. So I question them.

 

As I said, "Question everything and you get fooled less."

 

I'm not talking about politics or issues - other than to say, I think it is conservative to reduce your footprint.


Edited by Mr. Desmond - 1/24/13 at 5:19pm
post #223 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

That information has been printed in several scientific journals.    You were the one that brought up science and global climate change.   I suggest you look in the mirror when applying your label.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html - care to back track?

post #224 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWBDD View Post

 

Cite?

 

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for one.   NASA has also put out articles on it.    Google "red giant".   You can read all you want on it.

post #225 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen85 View Post

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html - care to back track?
Nope.   Again, even NASA acknowledges the fact our Sun will become a red giant and that our planet will become uninhabitable long before then.
post #226 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen85 View Post

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html - care to back track?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for one.   NASA has also put out articles on it.    Google "red giant".   You can read all you want on it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

Nope.   Again, even NASA acknowledges the fact our Sun will become a red giant and that our planet will become uninhabitable long before then.

Roper you keep mentioning NASA, yet this article that jgreen linked also mentions 2 NASA studies (highlighted in red).

Quote:

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

 

sun image EIT Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

 

 

 

P.S. Unless Phil is considering moving to somewhere north because of global warming, we have veered waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay z8_offtopic.gif

post #227 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

 

Your last sentence is nonsensical, to put it kindly, and is an emotional reaction.

 

I brought it up because Mayor Bloomberg cited climate change and indirectly, science, as the reason he endorsed Obama.

 

I said the label applied to people who believed what business told them - I have an MBA, was a CPA, worked in business  for over 30 years, and the last 20 as an attorney - I don't believe what people tell me, much less business. So I question them.

 

As I said, "Question everything and you get fooled less."

 

I'm not talking about politics or issues - other than to say, I think it is conservative to reduce your footprint.

I read your original comment as stating I was believing what business is saying.  

 

Concerning the need to reduce our footprint, I would agree there are things we should be doing differently.   Destroying forests, clearing land and destoying plantlife, turning it into concrete and subdivisions, etc..   needs to be curbed in an effort to preserve the very plants that provide the oxygen we need to survive.   I am also not opposed to reducing pollution and making our air cleaner.   Thus, I am not suggesting we do nothing.   I also believe that global warming exists because of the information stated above.  What I do not believe it is an entirely (or even primarily) human caused condition, nor do I believe we have the power to stop it.  

post #228 of 288

I agree with you, one should question everything.  The second piece to that advice is you need to listen to the full answer, not just the parts you want to pull out of it. 

 

There are potentially many causes of global warming that include; volcanos, forest fires, elimination of woodlands, gasoline for cars, diesel fuel for trucks and locomotives, heating oil, natural gas, coal, increase in population, etc.   There is some uncertainty with regards to how much the additional impact of human based greenhouse gases has.   The top 2 producers of greenhouse gases from humans is

1) Production of electricity - 33%

2) Transportation (gasoline and diesel) - 25%.

 

So this administration wants to invest our money into electric cars that will increase the demand for electricity (thus increasing the amount of greenhouse gases generated from electric production) while reducing the greenhouse gases from cars.  Then there's the problem of disposing of the batteries.  Seems science hasn't figured it all out yet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
Your last sentence is nonsensical, to put it kindly, and is an emotional reaction.

 

I brought it up because Mayor Bloomberg cited climate change and indirectly, science, as the reason he endorsed Obama.

 

I said the label applied to people who believed what business told them - I have an MBA, was a CPA, worked in business  for over 30 years, and the last 20 as an attorney - I don't believe what people tell me, much less business. So I question them.

 

As I said, "Question everything and you get fooled less."

 

I'm not talking about politics or issues - other than to say, I think it is conservative to reduce your footprint.

post #229 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

I read your original comment as stating I was believing what business is saying.  

 

Concerning the need to reduce our footprint, I would agree there are things we should be doing differently.   Destroying forests, clearing land and destoying plantlife, turning it into concrete and subdivisions, etc..   needs to be curbed in an effort to preserve the very plants that provide the oxygen we need to survive.   I am also not opposed to reducing pollution and making our air cleaner.   Thus, I am not suggesting we do nothing.   I also believe that global warming exists because of the information stated above.  What I do not believe it is an entirely (or even primarily) human caused condition, nor do I believe we have the power to stop it.  

No, I was talking about people in general. I do not disagree with your statement. The US has done a lot to reduce its pollution, although we need to recycle more and use less energy. Hopefully, we can engage the newly industrialized countries to reduce their pollution as we continue to reduce our footprint.

post #230 of 288

Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
 

post #231 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

 

Roper you keep mentioning NASA, yet this article that jgreen linked also mentions 2 NASA studies (highlighted in red).

 

 

P.S. Unless Phil is considering moving to somewhere north because of global warming, we have veered waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay z8_offtopic.gif

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/25oct_friedplanets/  This one basically is talking about a red giant that was seen telescopically but it does mention what is going to happen with earth.

 

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_cradlegrave.php   This one talks about the sun's expansion (see the section on middle age)

 

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10474.html  A specific question about the sun's expansion and it's affect on life.

post #232 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/25oct_friedplanets/  This one basically is talking about a red giant that was seen telescopically but it does mention what is going to happen with earth.

 

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_cradlegrave.php   This one talks about the sun's expansion (see the section on middle age)

 

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10474.html  A specific question about the sun's expansion and it's affect on life.

Yes, but none of those articles talk specifically about how much direct affect the sun is having on our climate change.  They all just say the earth will probably no longer exist in 5 to 6 billion years.

 

That seems a little like me saying "I don't need to wear a seatbelt when I drive right now because I'm going to die in 40 or 50 years."  It doesn't really make sense. 

 

If I'm on the fence about global warming being caused, or at least exacerbated, by humans, given the information I've received in the last few hours, it's prety much a no-brainer which conclusion I'll draw ... because I've only been given one.

post #233 of 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Yes, but none of those articles talk specifically about how much direct affect the sun is having on our climate change.  They all just say the earth will probably no longer exist in 5 to 6 billion years.

That seems a little like me saying "I don't need to wear a seatbelt when I drive right now because I'm going to die in 40 or 50 years."  It doesn't really make sense. 

If I'm on the fence about global warming being caused, or at least exacerbated, by humans, given the information I've received in the last few hours, it's prety much a no-brainer which conclusion I'll draw ... because I've only been given one.


You are free to draw your own conclusions.   The links I posted are a mere fraction of what is out there but I do have other things to do besides pull up articles on the sun's expansion and it's affect on global temperature to satisfy the curiousity of others.   Granted, we are all going to die long before any of this happens, so for us it is moot.   As I said earlier, I am all for improving air quality.   I just don't believe we are the sole or even primary cause of, nor can we prevent global warming.
post #234 of 288

I'm with you,

 

I believe we (humans) have caused the release of more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  What I question is the reality of global warming, meaning is it real or is the climate cyclical and we're currently experiencing a period of higher temperatures or some other natural phenomenon that we don't comprehend fully yet.  Also given all the natural producers of green house gases what effect will eliminating the use of fossil fuels from vehicles have on it overall when you factor in the greenhouse gases released in the production of electricity? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

If I'm on the fence about global warming being caused, or at least exacerbated, by humans, given the information I've received in the last few hours, it's prety much a no-brainer which conclusion I'll draw ... because I've only been given one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Phil Mickelson paying 62% in taxes??? Mickelson expects to make 'drastic' changes