It's all over but for the sweating?

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by CFECO

... and GE pays no taxes, gets millions in refunds...."FAIL"!

False

[CFECO]

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010
THE WHITE HOUSE, March 25, 2011
By JAKE TAPPER via ABC WORLD NEWS
2010 was the second year in a row that GE recorded billions in profits and paid no taxes.
When President Obama announced his decision to appoint Immelt to the unpaid advisory role on job creation in January, some critics wondered whether the move was appropriate. Under his leadership, GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009. More than half of GE's workforce is now outside the United States.

[NachtRitter]

OK... so
- "General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010" != "GE pays no taxes, gets millions in refunds"
- Federal Taxes != all taxes
- The article referenced provides no verifiable source for the assertions made in the article. Since corporate tax returns are not public record, where did they get the information from?

There is no information that "GE pays no taxes", which I interpret as "they pay no taxes of any kind in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, etc." Therefore I am skeptical of that statement.

[gone-ot]

That's what happens (no taxes) when Corporate Offices are physically based in a foreign country (where taxes are almost universally lower).

[Arragonis]

This is a side issue. GE makes LOADS of money from renewables (i.e. taking money from taxpayers and consumers) and provides credit for others to do the same.

Taxes by corporations is a global issue - Starbucks "volunteered" to pay taxes in the UK last year - like taxes are optional ?

When there is a whole industry of tax avoidance staffed by people who are clever enough to put men on Mars but get more money for working out how clients can avoid tax - the message is clear.

The tax systems are too complex and just don't work.

When the tax code goes from < 1000 pages to > 10K pages that should be an alarm...

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Keep up - The author of this "study" has attempted to correct the media reports here. His estimates are the monies available to these organisations in total, not the money they spend on climate.

In other words the above can be translated as "don't look behind the curtain children"...

In other news the IPCC has quietly cut it's estimate of warming to 2100 to as little as 1.3 Deg C.

And that money is less than the money that Al Gore had pledged to fund promoting climate change. I don't know if he ever followed through or not, but at one time he pledged $150 million per year from the proceeds of his book and movie ("an inconvenient truth")

1.3C is actually a very reasonable estimate, if you consider solar and GHG contribution in a more honest manner.

[TheEnemy]

Since we are on a follow the money theme right now

'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research - Forbes

Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of the 91 conservative think tanks identified in Brulle’s paper. Just as importantly, these two groups raise money solely for environmental causes and frequently advocate for global warming restrictions. Their $1 billion is not diluted addressing issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, etc.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

...1.3C is actually a very reasonable estimate, if you consider solar and GHG contribution in a more honest manner.

The SPM (the bit politicians read - and write tbh) didn't have this change, it is in the detailed report only. I wonder if it will be revised down again once more lower climate sensitivity figures come in and once they work out why the models all run too hot.

The Gruan missed it, they were too busy spreading more panic.

Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn | Environment | The Guardian

[TheEnemy]

You wouldn't happen to know what chapter and page that info is on, I'm guessing chapter 12, but haven't found it yet.

[Arragonis]

I got it from here, which links to here (German). It also asks why the (predicted) temp rise is less but the (predicted) sea level rise has been increased.