Super Typhoon Haiyan: A Hint of What’s to Come?

Published: November 8th, 2013

By Andrew Freedman

Super Typhoon Haiyan was one of the most intense tropical cyclones at landfall on record when it struck the Philippines on Nov. 7. Its maximum sustained winds at landfall were pegged at 195 mph with gusts above 220 mph. Some meteorologists even proclaimed it to be the strongest tropical cyclone at landfall in recorded history.

Haiyan’s strength and the duration of its Category 5 intensity — the storm remained at peak Category 5 intensity for an incredible 48 straight hours — raises the question of whether manmade global warming tipped the odds in favor of such an extreme storm. After all, the global atmosphere contains 4 percent more water vapor than there was in the 1970s and global air and sea surface temperatures are higher now than they used to be, due in large part to manmade global warming as well as natural climate variability. These changes would, in theory at least, lead to stronger and wetter storms.

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-11_8_13_andrew_haiyan_viirs_highres-660x503.jpg
High-resolution satellite image of Super Typhoon Haiyan at its peak intensity on Nov. 7.
Credit: NOAA/CIRA.
Hurricane researchers contacted by Climate Central said Haiyan is an example of the type of extreme storm that may become more frequent as the climate continues to warm. But there is more consensus about the stormier future than there is about the present. The researchers also urged caution in attributing Haiyan’s strength to global warming, given the lack of evidence that manmade global warming has had any detectable influence on Western Pacific typhoons, let alone tropical cyclones in general (an umbrella term that includes typhoons and hurricanes).

Brian McNoldy, a a senior research associate at the University of Miami, told Climate Central that, “While Haiyan was absolutely amazing, it's not alone. It's in an elite company of a handful of other tropical cyclones scattered across the decades and across the world.” 

McNoldy downplayed global warming’s role in helping to fuel Super Typhoon Haiyan, saying, “We don't get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren't, so this was just as subject to this year's climate as the numerous others that weren't so impressive. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don't need to find an excuse for them.”

Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. “I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan's extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability."

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-11_8_13_andrew_haiyanoceanheat-550x310.jpg
Graphic showing the total amount of heat energy available for Super Typhoon Haiyan to absorb, not just on the surface, but integrated through the water column. Deeper, warmer pools of water are colored purple, though any region colored from pink to purple has sufficient energy to fuel storm intensification. The dotted line represents the best-track and forecast data as of 16:00 UTC on Nov. 7.
Credit: NOAA.
Climate research has not yet provided a clear picture of how global warming is altering tropical cyclones around the world. Importantly, though, studies are providing clues that we may be in for a much stormier future, with more intense storms that bring with them stronger winds, heavier rainfall, and greater storm surge due to sea level rise.

First, there's what the science says about the present state of the atmosphere. Between the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report in 2007 and the latest report released earlier this year, the science has become less certain on global warming's influence on such storms. That's partly because the historical records of tropical cyclones, be they hurricanes in the Atlantic or Pacific Typhoons, are full of gaps in the data, varying methodologies and inaccuracies.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

The most recent IPCC report said: “Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence.” The IPCC found that insufficient observational evidence, a lack of understanding regarding the physical connection between manmade climate change and tropical storms, and considerable disagreement between studies justified downplaying any detectable changes in tropical cyclones due to global warming.

What is clearer and more worrisome than the present picture, though, is what is expected to happen in coming decades, assuming that the climate continues to warm as expected. In general, the latest IPCC report found that manmade global warming is likely to make tropical cyclones produce more rainfall and have higher wind speeds than they typically do now, but the frequency of these storms may decline in some ocean basins.

Monster storms like Haiyan may, in fact, become more common in the future, thanks to a readier supply of warm ocean waters and possible changes to atmospheric wind shear, which can tear storms apart, in some ocean basins that could aid such storms (such changes could also inhibit storms in other ocean basins). Some studies have found that manmade emissions of soot in South Asia, in addition to global warming, have already lessened wind shear over the Indian Ocean, leading to an increase in tropical cyclone intensities there in recent years.

“The available modelling studies that are capable of producing very strong cyclones typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones and it is more likely than not that this increase will be larger than 10 percent in some basins,” the IPCC report said. Given that the strongest storms tend to be responsible for a disproportionate share of storm damage and loss of life, the IPCC report said, “It should be emphasized that this metric is generally more important to physical and societal impacts than overall frequency or mean intensity.”

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-11_8_13_andrew_ipcc_hurricanechart-550x330.jpg
Projected changes in tropical cyclone statistics. All values represent expected percent change in the average over period 2081–2100 relative to 2000–2019, under a high emissions scenario. The metrics presented here include the total annual frequency of tropical storms, the annual frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms, the mean lifetime maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, and the precipitation rate within 200 km of the storm center at its most intense point. The solid blue line is the best guess of the expected percent change, and the coloured bar provides the likely confidence interval for this value.
Credit: IPCC Working Group II.

Vecchi, who has published a slew of scientific papers on hurricanes and global warming, told Climate Central that it may not be until the end of this century that a global warming signal emerges in tropical cyclone records.

“ . . . Globally, and by the end of the 21st century, we expect global warming to make tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones) more intense, and the frequency of the most intense storms (like Haiyan) is expected to increase,” Vecchi said in an email. “However, we have much less confidence in what global warming should do in each individual basin.”

While the scientific consensus clearly skews toward stronger, wetter, but less frequent tropical cyclones in the coming decades, there are some studies that depart from that view. In fact, a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in July found that tropical cyclones are likely to become both stronger and more frequent in the years to come, with a huge jump in storm frequency and intensity in the Northwest Pacific Ocean Basin. The study, by MIT hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel, used the latest generation of computer models to arrive at its results, but it has not yet been backed by subsequent research from other groups.

“It is premature to judge how robust this finding will be” once its techniques are replicated across different computer models and compared to other similar methods, Tom Knutson, a researcher at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said.

...Due to the complex nature of the earths systems, which includes the Climate Systems, it's not possible to link AGW with any isolated climatic event. Even for a huge typhoon such as this.

What is needed is a comprehensive data base that includes numerous events and also a baseline for comparison.

Statistically significantly Trends are what is important. For typhoons for example, the intensity and frequency data for Typhoons in different regions over long time periods is  needed.

it doesn't look good

lol the dills are out with the MAY word again. oh look a storm that doesnt happen often. Yeh that MAY be whats to come if only the earth could manipulate climate data and get the dog to eat its homework on hockey sticks, it may start playing ball.

LOL u tools

I re-post this here, as it is relevant.


perceptions_now wrote on Nov 10^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Typhoon Haiyan: widespread destruction in central Philippines city of Tacloban Local TV pictures show the terrrible aftermath of the the typhoon on Tacloban, where a local police chief estimates thousands have perished, as the reacue operation gets underway in many other areas of the country. The death toll from one of the strongest storms on record that ravaged the central Philippine city of Tacloban could reach 10,000 people, officials said after the extent of massive devastation became apparent. Regional police chief Elmer Soria said he was briefed by Leyte provincial Governor Dominic Petilla late on Saturday and told there were about 10,000 deaths on the island, mostly by drowning and from collapsed buildings. The governor's figure was based on reports from village officials in areas where Typhoon Haiyan slammed on Friday. About 300-400 bodies have already been recovered, he said. The typhoon barrelled through six central Philippine islands on Friday, wiping away buildings and levelling seaside homes.  Link  - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/10438796/Typhoon-Haiyan-widespread-destruction-in-central-Philippines-city-of-Tacloban.html ============================================ The article also has an embedded video, showing some of the damage. What we know, is that this is the strongest storm to hit land, with winds gusting up to 380 kph. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-biggest-storms What we don't know, for sure, is whether this is a precursor of things to come, But it certainly fits with what the Climate Change scientists have been saying, with more/serious droughts & more/serious storms & other Climate Changes! And, it is certainly fitting the patterns already emerging, so it would seem that the physical property damage shown here in the Philippines & the high number of likely deaths, is something we will see repeated, with a growing regularity, over the decades to come!  Oh & anyone in Australia or elsewhere, who thinks this has nothing to do with them, THINK AGAIN! Insurance is a commodity we ALL NEED & with international Re-insurance arrangements the way they are,  WHETHER IT IS A TYPHOON IN THE PHILIPPINES, A CYCLONE IN DARWIN OR QUEENSLAND OR HURRICANES IN NEW YORK, WE WILL ALL PAY BY WAY OF INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS! Finally, whatever the final cost of lives in the Philippines &/or in Vietnam/China, MY THOUGHTS ARE WITH THE PEOPLES OF THOSE NATIONS! In particular, however, my thoughts are with a Microsoft employee Ferdinand, who is based in the Philippines & who I spoke to on Thursday, regarding a problem with Email deliveries. Ferdinand was going to check it out & ring me back on Friday, but I have no yet heard back from him!       I hope he has come thru ok!

I re-post this here, as it is relevant.


perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

I re-post this here, as it is relevant. perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!

And I'll re-post my answer here too as it is relevant.
In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%.

But hey who needs science when you can suck the marrow out of events like these. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can post a picture or 2...maybe a drowned kid face down...that would be a coup...plenty of mileage there!

Terrible disaster. Over 10,000 people killed. My thoughts go to those affected.

# wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:

[... continued] The most recent IPCC report said: “Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence.” The IPCC found that insufficient observational evidence, a lack of understanding regarding the physical connection between manmade climate change and tropical storms, and considerable disagreement between studies justified downplaying any detectable changes in tropical cyclones due to global warming.

Correct. The only reasonably high confidence prediction was that cyclones would migrate further South in Australia.

The emphasis is lack of data as yet. That doesn't mean no effect - it means no data. It's too early to detect anything significant at this early stage.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

lol the dills are out with the MAY word again. oh look a storm that doesnt happen often. Yeh that MAY be whats to come if only the earth could manipulate climate data and get the dog to eat its homework on hockey sticks, it may start playing ball. LOL u tools

just another data point on the graph mister smelly.

you do know how the scientific analysis is done you flabby de-fragmented foul stenching weasel dropping mould maggot

muso wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Terrible disaster. Over 10,000 people killed. My thoughts go to those affected.

Abbott pulled out the cheque straight away with an enormous $400,000 in aid. Whats that, about $40 to every family of he dead...

And of course even this aid wont reach the people who most need it. Most likely it goes to Australian corporations or NGOs that are already set up in the country. You just never know, maybe $5.47 may reach the families.

Abbott-oir the great Christian humanitarian of our times.

A man who has already slashed foreign aid to about half what the international community sets as a minimum for an affluent nation. Cuba provides more foreign aid on a per capita and as a percentage of GDP that Australia does.

Australia emits a foul stench in the UN at the moment, and in numerous Embassies around the world

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 5:34pm: I re-post this here, as it is relevant. perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!       And I'll re-post my answer here too as it is relevant. In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%. But hey who needs science when you can suck the marrow out of events like these. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can post a picture or 2...maybe a drowned kid face down...that would be a coup...plenty of mileage there!

Such an event, just did happen!

It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes!

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

... LOL u tools

Much as you and your fellow denialists might like to avoid responsibility, the best science suggests that our behaviour risks increasing the prevalence of extreme weather events. Events like Haiyan and the conditions that precipitated the recent bush fires in NSW. Evidently, you're ignorant enough to believe you know better.


muso wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

... The emphasis is lack of data as yet. That doesn't mean no effect - it means no data. It's too early to detect anything significant at this early stage.

Unfortunately, by the time we have enough data to prove, beyond the unreasonable doubt favoured by denialists, that we're destabilising the planet's climate, preventing catastrophe will be prohibitively expensive. Assuming, of course, that it's possible.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 6:16pm: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 5:34pm: I re-post this here, as it is relevant. perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!       And I'll re-post my answer here too as it is relevant. In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%. But hey who needs science when you can suck the marrow out of events like these. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can post a picture or 2...maybe a drowned kid face down...that would be a coup...plenty of mileage there! Such an event, just did happen! It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes!

It's all over, the planet is cooked.

No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling.

Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness

Really?

What "potential"?

iPhone 10?

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness Really? What "potential"? iPhone 10? ::)

Its all over Greggy - the human race is run

Finished - all washed up, down the drain pipe

flushed down the toilet like the turds of Hades

pity

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:28pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness Really? What "potential"? iPhone 10? ::) Its all over Greggy - the human race is run Finished - all washed up, down the drain pipe flushed down the toilet like the turds of Hades pity

Yes, I agree.

But I couldn't care less.

So, what was the "potential" you mentioned?

Ice cream flavoured popcorn?

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 6:16pm: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 5:34pm: I re-post this here, as it is relevant. perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:23pm: A few observations - 1) I have heard all the usual lines of denial, such as the climate is always changing & that is correct, as can be seen here, for the last 400,000 years - http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/T%20CO2%20SL%20current%20Makiko%20TIMMED.jpg 2) However, that line is largely erroneous, because it is only the affect on humanity & the effects by humanity which are of interest, for us. In this respect, WE (humanity) have only recently (the last 200 years) grown into numbers sufficiently large, where our sheer numbers could have any substantial effect on the Global Environment AND where "some" of those Global Climate Changes will then have a substantial affect on us, because we now inhabit so much of the planet & that the density of our habitation is now so great, that these changes have so much greater affect now, than at any previous stage of our relatively short "occupation" of this planet. 3) So, whilst the Climate has always "changed", we have not been around long enough for those changes to materially affect us, except for the last Ice Age, which nearly saw us become extinct! 4) As can be seen from the above chart, we are now at or approaching the top of the current warming phase, so unless our involvement kicks us completely out of the usual cycle, we will start into the next Ice Age part of the cycle, in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we will hit Peak warming & with that will come some Peak weather/climate events, such as extra strong storms, floods and droughts just to mention a few, plus likely large rises in sea levels. Whether anyone believes in human caused climate change, is largely irrelevant, we are now at  the infection point when change will happen anyway and if it does happen over the decades ahead, as seems likely from the best current scientific & anecdotal evidence, then it will happen at a once in history time for humanity, just as our Global Population has acquired "maximum carry capacity", so the outcomes will also reflect our exposure & probably our lack of mitigation against the risks! Oh & it is also interesting how little comment there is, concerning the human element of the current event/disaster, with deaths expected to number in the many thousands, damage expected to decimate entire regions and peoples well being for quite some time & no, I have not yet heard from Ferdinand!       And I'll re-post my answer here too as it is relevant. In reference to your last comment you might read earlier in your own post ie lots more people = lots more people effected = lots more deaths not necessarily and in all probability NOT more severe events. The US city of Galveston in 1900 when there were many fewer people, was hit by a hurricane that caused about 10,000 deaths. If such an event were to happen today you would really have something to lather up about but the truth is had that happened at that time where the current one hit you would have never known it had ever happened. All this is is opportunism, anecdotal conjecture and finger pointing...100%....science...0%. But hey who needs science when you can suck the marrow out of events like these. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can post a picture or 2...maybe a drowned kid face down...that would be a coup...plenty of mileage there! Such an event, just did happen! It is not anecdotal, it is not finger pointing... 0%, it is Fact ...100% and now is the appropriate time to review our risk mitigation, because if we leave it until the outcomes are absolutely obvious, then it will be far too late and we maywill have given any chance of avoiding the worst outcomes!

Come to think of it all the extra weight from all those extra people is probably causing worse earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:50pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:28pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness Really? What "potential"? iPhone 10? ::) Its all over Greggy - the human race is run Finished - all washed up, down the drain pipe flushed down the toilet like the turds of Hades pity Yes, I agree. But I couldn't care less. So, what was the "potential" you mentioned? Ice cream flavoured popcorn?

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/842/492/84249244_640.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling.

Good so we can finally scrap the carbon tax

Swagman wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Good so we can finally scrap the carbon tax

What about the 11 billion dollars per year of Tax payer subsidies going to the Australian fossil fuel and mining sectors?

Should we scrap this scam rort cartel theft?

What about the 1.9 trillion dollars that the global tax payer provides for the fossil fuel industry? Should this be scrapped?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness

So, you're happy to give up & condemn the future, without even trying?

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Pity, human civilisation has so much potential - a potential that turned into self destructiveness So, you're happy to give up & condemn the future, without even trying?

There is nothing anyone can do

The Corpocracy Rules

Its all over, washed and finished

Planet is gone - down the toilet, finished - its all over

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 11:39pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Good so we can finally scrap the carbon tax What about the 11 billion dollars per year of Tax payer subsidies going to the Australian fossil fuel and mining sectors? Should we scrap this scam rort cartel theft? What about the 1.9 trillion dollars that the global tax payer provides for the fossil fuel industry? Should this be scrapped?

No just the carbon tax and the mining tax.

Put the GST up if you want to save the world.

Swagman wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:20am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:39pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Good so we can finally scrap the carbon tax What about the 11 billion dollars per year of Tax payer subsidies going to the Australian fossil fuel and mining sectors? Should we scrap this scam rort cartel theft? What about the 1.9 trillion dollars that the global tax payer provides for the fossil fuel industry? Should this be scrapped? No just the carbon tax and the mining tax. Put the GST up if you want to save the world.

I see - so why do you want social corporate welfare for the Rich and punishment for everybody else?

Lets see, Gina Reinhart for example earns about $15,000 per minute (that's 24/7 - so even when she has poo, or is asleep, which probably takes up a lot of her day, she is earning $15,000 per minute)

And YOU want Gina and a homeless person or someone living under the poverty line, to pay the SAME GST taxation on a litre of milk and loaf of bread?

This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax?

Incidentally, the so called AUSTRALIAN mining and energy sectors, are 84% foreign owned (mainly in the hands of US corporations). This industry only employs about 3% of Australians, which is less than the number of workers in Queensland tourism industry. They also avoid tax and are subsidies by the tax payer every year to the tune of about 11 billion dollars.

How long have you been blind?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 7:20am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:39pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: It's all over, the planet is cooked. No hope, too late to do anything now except wait for the inevitable grilling. Good so we can finally scrap the carbon tax What about the 11 billion dollars per year of Tax payer subsidies going to the Australian fossil fuel and mining sectors? Should we scrap this scam rort cartel theft? What about the 1.9 trillion dollars that the global tax payer provides for the fossil fuel industry? Should this be scrapped? No just the carbon tax and the mining tax. Put the GST up if you want to save the world. I see - so why do you want social corporate welfare for the Rich and punishment for everybody else? Lets see, Gina Reinhart for example earns about $15,000 per minute (that's 24/7 - so even when she has poo, or is asleep, which probably takes up a lot of her day, she is earning $15,000 per minute) And YOU want Gina and a homeless person or someone living under the poverty line, to pay the SAME GST taxation on a litre of milk and loaf of bread? This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? Incidentally, the so called AUSTRALIAN mining and energy sectors, are 84% foreign owned (mainly in the hands of US corporations). This industry only employs about 3% of Australians, which is less than the number of workers in Queensland tourism industry. They also avoid tax and are subsidies by the tax payer every year to the tune of about 11 billion dollars. How long have you been blind?

So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well...well no, that's not right either, the NSW party, and others presumably, were busy parceling such benefits out to their mates...Obeid, McDonald,etc. And you loved them for it.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

... No hope, ...

Our fate is sealed, only when we give up.


Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

... human civilisation has so much potential ...

Does it?

Given the vastness of space and time, it seems unlikely that this planet is the only one on which life has developed. That which we call "intelligence" is a niche which evolution will inevitably fill, wherever there is life.

I've often wondered, therefore, why we aren't overrun with interstellar tourists. My conclusion, based on observation of humanity, is that they're all dead. That which we laughably call "intelligence" is not viable, in the longer term.

I live in hope that I'll be proven wrong.

Swagman wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:20am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:39pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 11:31pm: ... we can finally scrap the carbon tax What about the 11 billion dollars per year of Tax payer subsidies going to the Australian fossil fuel and mining sectors? Should we scrap this scam rort cartel theft? What about the 1.9 trillion dollars that the global tax payer provides for the fossil fuel industry? Should this be scrapped? No just the carbon tax and the mining tax. ...

Do you have rational reasoning for that?

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

... So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well ...

Tu quoque
Quote:

Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:58am:

This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax?

That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax.

They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax.

They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people.

Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better.

# wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:09am: ... So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well ... Tu quoque Quote: Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

No it does not invalidate it...or validate it for that matter... But if someone is acting inconsistently or apparently hypocritically with their stated point of view it is an indication that they do not in fact hold that point of view. Or when that point of view diverges only on the basis of, and directed at, personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, or politics it is irrational and the basis of such character traits as racism, etc.   

Swagman wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better.

You forgot Royalties.

Bet you don' pay Royalties do you Chump, dirty f%cking Champaign socialist scum

To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say -
1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions!

2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you -
a) don't believe that the cause is Human related?
b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all? 
c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not taking whatever Mitigating actions we can? 

3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken.
So, do you -
a) Generally not believe what scientists say?
b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying?
c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"?
If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons?
If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not accepting/believing that the Scientific Consensus is correct? 

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not taking whatever Mitigating actions we can?  3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not accepting/believing that the Scientific Consensus is correct?

What actions exactly...you seem to be good at making lists...

Black is actually white http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02359/kenny_2359249b.jpg

# wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... No hope, ... Our fate is sealed, only when we give up. Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... human civilisation has so much potential ... Does it? Given the vastness of space and time, it seems unlikely that this planet is the only one on which life has developed. That which we call "intelligence" is a niche which evolution will inevitably fill, wherever there is life. I've often wondered, therefore, why we aren't overrun with interstellar tourists. My conclusion, based on observation of humanity, is that they're all dead. That which we laughably call "intelligence" is not viable, in the longer term. I live in hope that I'll be proven wrong.

Or more scientifically put….

They are all extincted….

Swagman wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better.

No they don't.

The pay very little tax in Australia.

e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero.

83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore.

Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits

How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen

Rider wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. You forgot Royalties. Bet you don' pay Royalties do you Chump, dirty f%cking Champaign socialist scum

Yes the massive Royalties that the mining industry pays - a pathetic 0.73% of their earnings - and they get that back and more from the tax payer.

Ask the WA government how its books are looking during several decades of a mining boom. They are in massive debt and all the foreign owned mining corporations are laughing their heads off in board rooms overseas with their CEOs enjoying massive bonuses etc

And you support this form of corproatised fascism on a global scale. Why? Well because Mr Rider, ladies an gentlemen, emits the foulest of odours into the ether, like a de-fragmented diseased weasel sloth

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:28pm: ... all Actions ... What actions ...

Are you trolling?


namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

... it does not invalidate it ...

That concession, at least, is healthy.

You can stop trolling now.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

# wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 11:52am: namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:09am: ... So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well ... Tu quoque Quote: Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. No it does not invalidate it...or validate it for that matter... But if someone is acting inconsistently or apparently hypocritically with their stated point of view it is an indication that they do not in fact hold that point of view. Or when that point of view diverges only on the basis of, and directed at, personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, or politics it is irrational and the basis of such character traits as racism, etc.

If you disagree with David B ( # ), he'll call you a troll.

Just wait and see.

Anyone who doesn't follow his religion is automatically labelled a troll.

It's his way of dealing with conflict (seeing as he doesn't have a convincing argument).

He's a troubled soul, that boy.

Chimp Logic

'e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero.'

Fortescue Metals Group was founded in 2002. I was involved in pilotting dongas up to the mine in 2006.

The following from their website - in the overview

"Construction of Fortescue's initial mine, rail and port project commenced in early 2006. Incredibly, just two years later in early 2008, the rail and port infrastructure were completed and operations were underway at Cloudbreak, Fortescue's flagship mine.

In the first full year of operations, Fortescue mined, railed and shipped more than 27 million tonnes of iron ore to customers in China. The following year saw 40 million tonnes delivered and more than 55 million tonnes in FY12, current expansion plans are committed to increasing Fortescue's production capacity to 155 million tonnes per annum. "

Fortescue paid tax in 2012.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

... he'll call you a troll. ...

Young wanker*, you're losing your touch.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

# wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 7:22pm: ... he'll call you a troll. ... Young wanker*, you're losing your touch.

au contraire

I'm better than ever.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:28pm: To those who are not willing to mitigate against the Risks of Climate Change, I would say - 1) There are Consequences, for all Actions & In-actions! 2) Is your major reason, for not taking whatever Mitigation Actions we are capable of, that you - a) don't believe that the cause is Human related? b) simply don't believe that the climate is changing at all?  c) believe the climate is changing, but we can not do anything about it? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not taking whatever Mitigating actions we can?  3) Scientific opinion is clearly saying that Climate Change is happening and that outcomes will worsen, if Mitigating actions are not taken. So, do you - a) Generally not believe what scientists say? b) Not believe, what Climate scientists in particular are saying? c) Believe there is some sort of Political or other Conspiracy, for "some reason"? If you agree with one of the above, please explain your reasons? If none of the above apply, then please explain your reasoning, for not accepting/believing that the Scientific Consensus is correct?  What actions exactly...you seem to be good at making lists...

There are many, although YOU COULD START HERE -
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spmsspm-e.html

However, I would suggest IF you were seriously interested, YOU COULD LOOK UP THE ISSUES YOURSELF?

# wrote on Nov 11^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

Super Typhoon Haiyan: A Hint of What’s to Come? Published: November 8th, 2013 By Andrew Freedman

Not another Andrew Freedman article?!? Shurely shome mishtake!!

The link goes to:


Andrew Freedman
Editorial
Senior Science Writer
Email: afreedman@climatecentral.org
Google+: View Profile
Andrew Freedman is a senior science writer for Climate Central, focusing on coverage of extreme weather and climate change. Prior to working with Climate Central, Freedman was a reporter for Congressional Quarterly and Greenwire/E&E Daily. His work has also appeared in the Washington Post and online at The Weather Channel Interactive and washingtonpost.com, where he wrote a weekly climate science column for the "Capital Weather Gang" blog. He has represented Climate Central in media appearances with Sky News, CBC Radio, NPR, Huffington Post Live, Sirius XM Radio, and other national and international outlets. He holds a Masters in Climate and Society from Columbia University and a Masters in Law and Diplomacy from The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/people/andrew_freedman

Climate and Society, eh? Law and Diplomacy. Another activist agit-prop professional from the vanguard then. Not a scientist, an agitator.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:18pm: # wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 11:52am: namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:09am: ... So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well ... Tu quoque Quote: Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. No it does not invalidate it...or validate it for that matter... But if someone is acting inconsistently or apparently hypocritically with their stated point of view it is an indication that they do not in fact hold that point of view. Or when that point of view diverges only on the basis of, and directed at, personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, or politics it is irrational and the basis of such character traits as racism, etc.    If you disagree with David B ( # ), he'll call you a troll. Just wait and see. Anyone who doesn't follow his religion is automatically labelled a troll. It's his way of dealing with conflict (seeing as he doesn't have a convincing argument). He's a troubled soul, that boy.

I not bothered by someone with such obvious and limited understanding.  ::)

lee wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

Chimp Logic 'e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero.' Fortescue Metals Group was founded in 2002. I was involved in pilotting dongas up to the mine in 2006. The following from their website - in the overview "Construction of Fortescue's initial mine, rail and port project commenced in early 2006. Incredibly, just two years later in early 2008, the rail and port infrastructure were completed and operations were underway at Cloudbreak, Fortescue's flagship mine. In the first full year of operations, Fortescue mined, railed and shipped more than 27 million tonnes of iron ore to customers in China. The following year saw 40 million tonnes delivered and more than 55 million tonnes in FY12, current expansion plans are committed to increasing Fortescue's production capacity to 155 million tonnes per annum. " Fortescue paid tax in 2012.

just in 2012?

what percentage tax did Fortescue pay in 2012 ?

(btw: Fortescue goes back further than 2002, even though it was essentially a 1 cent stock - way back to 1994)

To give just one example, Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forest’s Fortescue Metals Group made $579 million
profit in 2010. However, it was able to deduct $176 million against its $174 million prima facie tax bill, meaning that it paid no tax in 2010 and will receive a $2 million tax credit to use next year.34

source: RORTS AND LOOPHOLES RORTS AND LOOPHOLES RORTS AND LOOPHOLES RORTS AND LOOPHOLES    Tax evasion, avoidance & tax breaks     ACTU Working Australia Tax Paper No. 3 September 2011   

Fortescue under fire for not paying tax

Updated Wed 9 Nov 2011, 8:39pm AEDT


Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest speaks to the media Photo: FMG chairman Andrew Forrest is at odds with the Government over the mining tax. (Andrew O'Connor: ABC News)

Related Story: FMG pushes for mining tax changes

Related Story: Tax does not target small miners: Treasury

Related Story: Mining tax bills introduced to Parliament


Map:  Australia
The Federal Government has attacked Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) chairman Andrew Forrest over the revelation his business has never paid company tax.

FMG head of government relations Julian Tapp told a parliamentary committee into the mining tax today that the company had not yet paid any company tax but was due to pay up to $800 million this financial year.

"We have not cut a corporate tax cheque to date, no," Mr Tapp said.

But Mr Tapp said the company had paid millions in state iron ore royalties.

"We're also paying circa $450m to $500m a year on current production levels in West Australian state royalties, so I do not agree that Fortescue does not contribute its fair share," Mr Tapp said.

Government Senate leader Chris Evans says the company has a market capitalisation of $20 billion.

"They have never paid a dollar in company tax to date and they want to resist having to pay the Mining Resource Rent Tax," Senator Evans said.



Audio: Government attacks Fortescue over tax (PM)


"A large mining company owned by Australia's richest man won't pay tax ... that is not something the Australian people should accept."

FMG and the Government are at odds over the mining tax bills, which are being examined by the parliamentary committee.

What you don't seem to understand is that mines have start up losses until income flows. They then claim these losses as deductions until exhausted.

It is no different to any business- even rental property.

I noticed you referenced 2011 year. It took six years from breking the ground to paying tax.

You should really look beyond the ACTU and it's spin for your information, They have little experience in running a business. Not recently anyway. The last one I can remember went bust.

Try the Company Reports.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 4:02pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. No they don't. The pay very little tax in Australia. e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero. 83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore. Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen

Actually Chimp, '83% foreign owned' is a monstrous exaggeration.

Out of 44 Australian mining companies that I just researched, only about 6 are foreign owned (maybe as many as 10 if you use having an overseas listing or offices as the definition).

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

What you don't seem to understand is that mines have start up losses until income flows. They then claim these losses as deductions until exhausted. It is no different to any business- even rental property. I noticed you referenced 2011 year. It took six years from breking the ground to paying tax. You should really look beyond the ACTU and it's spin for your information, They have little experience in running a business. Not recently anyway. The last one I can remember went bust. Try the Company Reports.

They also get the land for pepper corn rents and sometimes are merely handed exploration licenses that are essentially boundless.

The Federal government in the early 1970s carried an economic analysis of what the mining and resrource sector was costing or contributing to the AUstralian economy/tax payer etc.

The study found that each year the mining and resource sectors were actually COSTING the Australian tax payer about 120 million dollars. The opposition at the time disputed this figure and conducted their own study with a private economics firm - they still found the industry was costing the tax payer about 25 million dollars per year.

And remember at that time more of the resource sectors were in AUstralian hands.

Today 83% of the Australian mining and energy sectors are foreign owned (US corporations control about 56%)

Australia is the dumbest country on the planet - by far.

There are no dumber people in the world than the AUstralian suckers.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 4:02pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. No they don't. The pay very little tax in Australia. e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero. 83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore. Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen Actually Chimp, '83% foreign owned' is a monstrous exaggeration. Out of 44 Australian mining companies that I just researched, only about 6 are foreign owned (maybe as many as 10 if you use having an overseas listing or offices as the definition).

List the 44 companies you researched and quote the percentage of the Australian mining sector that they control.

You do realise that BHP and RIO are 50% and 75% foreign owned respectively? Do you know how much of Australias mining goes through just these two corporate giants?

You quote garbage as usual because you cant handle the truth about your own country and your own existence within it

You should be ashamed at trying to lie and deceive in public just so that you can live with yourself as a pathetic scoundrel freak weasel
http://www.worldzootoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ALeqM5j7EmoH1UhrA5tG44_FUJO-klSywA-410x580.jpg

Mums and dads have been talking about it for years: selling our minerals for a song and the kids can go to hell!

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

What you don't seem to understand is that mines have start up losses until income flows. They then claim these losses as deductions until exhausted. It is no different to any business- even rental property. I noticed you referenced 2011 year. It took six years from breking the ground to paying tax. You should really look beyond the ACTU and it's spin for your information, They have little experience in running a business. Not recently anyway. The last one I can remember went bust. Try the Company Reports.

They do pay considerable sums up front also...before they did up a bean.

What Typhoon Haiyan Means For Climate Change — And The UN’s Ongoing Climate Talks
By Ari Phillips on November 12, 2013 at 12:13 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AP884873511099-555x369.jpg
Residents, waiting for relief supplies, are framed by a tattered Philippine flag amidst the devastation caused by Super Typhoon Haiyan.

Super Typhoon Haiyan has passed over the Philippines and is now weakening over China, but the impact it left on the the island nation in Southeast Asia is just setting in. At least 10,000 people are feared to have been killed according to the provincial government of Leyte, the worst hit of the nation’s provinces, with at least 1,774 bodies already officially accounted for.

According to the BBC, more than nine million people have been affected in the Philippines, with more than 600,000 people left homeless.

The United Nations has authorized $25 million in emergency funds to provide food, temporary shelters, health services, drinking water, and sanitation and has issued an appeal for a further $300 million.

“Many thousands of people are reported to have died and almost 10 million people have been affected … Let us all show our solidarity with the people of the Philippines at this time of need,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said after describing images of the storm as “heartbreaking”.

Forty percent of the population in the Philippines lives on $2 or less per day and makeshift infrastructure makes many residences more vulnerable to extreme weather events.

Support has flowed in from more than 20 countries, Philippine authorities said.

The UN children’s fund UNICEF said a cargo plane carrying 60 tonnes of aid including shelters and medicine would arrive in the Philippines Tuesday, to be followed by deliveries of water purification and sanitation equipment.

The US aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which has 5,000 sailors and more than 80 aircraft aboard, headed from Hong Kong towards the Philippines on Tuesday. Five other US warships are also being deployed. The U.S. has also offered $20 million in humanitarian aid. Secretary of State John Kerry told Philippine Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario that the U.S. government will provide “all necessary assistance.”

The Typhoon’s Role In Climate Talks

Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) said Monday that Super Typhoon Haiyan served as a backdrop of “sobering reality” for the 19th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP19, happening this month in a football stadium in Warsaw, Poland.

“We must stay focused, exert maximum effort for the full time and produce a positive result, because what happens in this stadium is not a game,” Figueres told delegates. “There are not two sides, but the whole of humanity. There are no winners and losers, we all either win or lose in the future we make for ourselves.”

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Philippine Climate Change Commissioner and lead climate negotiator Naderev “Yeb” Saño also delivered some potent remarks during the opening session of COP19, saying, “with an apparent cruel twist of fate, my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan”:


Quote:

“It was so strong that if there was a Category 6, it would have fallen squarely in that box … To anyone outside who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare them, I dare them to get off their ivory towers and away from the comfort of their armchairs. I dare them to go to the islands of the Pacific, the Caribbean, the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling sea ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water become scarce.”

Saño deviated from his prepared remarks to pledge that he would refrain from eating at the convention until “a meaningful outcome is in sight.”

He called for global solidarity and enhanced ambition in confronting climate change, specifically calling on the COP to deliver meaningful progress on a pledge by rich countries to deliver $100 billion from 2020 to help developing countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

Saño went on to say that the typhoon made landfall in his family’s hometown, and that as he agonizes while waiting for the fate of friends and family the news that his brother survived the onslaught gives him renewed strength.

“Climate change will mean increased potential for more intense tropical storms and this will have profound implications on many communities, especially who struggle against the twin challenges of the development crisis and the climate change crisis,” Saño said.

The Typhoon’s Role In Climate Change

According to CNN, Super Typhoon Haiyan may have hit the Philippines with the strongest sustained cyclone winds on record at 195 mph. Scientists are still analyzing the data. Gusts reported at first landfall that rose to 235 mph would also be a record if confirmed.

Senior Presidential aide Rene Alemendras told the AP that preparation efforts anticipated the wind but not the water. Leyte and its capital city of Tacloban — home to 200,000 — was inundated by storm surges as high as 20 feet.

According to Climate Central, there is increasing evidence that climate change is making the impacts of storm surges worse by raising the underlying sea levels. However, studies still show a high amount of uncertainty about how global warming is affecting the frequency and intensity of West Pacific typhoons.

Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at Australian National University, told the Sydney Morning Herald that scientists understand how a hotter, moister climate is already affecting storms such as Haiyan.

“Once [cyclones] do form, they get most of their energy from the surface waters of the ocean,” Professor Steffen said. “We know sea-surface temperatures are warming pretty much around the planet, so that’s a pretty direct influence of climate change on the nature of the storm.”

Data compiled from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows sea temperatures were about 0.5 to 1 degree above normal in the waters to the east of the Philippines as Haiyan began forming.

Kerry A. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at M.I.T., told the New York Times that that as the planet warms the difference between sea and air temperatures increases and that this differences fuels the increased intensity of storms like Haiyan.

“As you warm the climate, you basically raise the speed limit on hurricanes,” he said.

There has been some conjecture as to the maximum sustained wind speeds of various storms. Of course modern records only go as far as about 1960 for satellite imaging; before that it's anyone's guess.

Will Steffen's comment: Haiyan did not track over much of the warmer seas as I understand it  so that may be jumping the gun.

Jeff Masters was claiming the strongest storm in WORLD History- which given our instrumentation is only 100 odd years old, rather fanciful.

What made it worse was shelving ocean floor creating a bigger storm surge.

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

... someone with such obvious and limited understanding.  ...

The difference is that I know it.

To paraphrase a Confucian aphorism:
Quote:

The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know.

I've been studying the climate issue since the 1950s*. It eventually became clear that the subject is so complex that nobody who doesn't devote their life to it has any hope of developing a credible understanding.

I have other things to do with my life, so I just heed the best. The vast majority of the best are as certain as possible that humanity is destabilising the climate.

On the evidence of your behaviour, you lack both the necessary wisdom and the learning to realise the extent of your ignorance.

* You do know that Al Gore didn't invent global warming, don't you?

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 7:22pm: namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:18pm: # wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 11:52am: namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:09am: ... So these are things the Lab government obviously were blind to as well ... Tu quoque Quote: Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. No it does not invalidate it...or validate it for that matter... But if someone is acting inconsistently or apparently hypocritically with their stated point of view it is an indication that they do not in fact hold that point of view. Or when that point of view diverges only on the basis of, and directed at, personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, or politics it is irrational and the basis of such character traits as racism, etc.    If you disagree with David B ( # ), he'll call you a troll. Just wait and see. Anyone who doesn't follow his religion is automatically labelled a troll. It's his way of dealing with conflict (seeing as he doesn't have a convincing argument). He's a troubled soul, that boy. I not bothered by someone with such obvious and limited understanding.

Apparently, those most susceptible to brainwashing are insecure or guilt-ridden, or have a low self-esteem.

It's a shame.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... Apparently, those most susceptible to brainwashing are insecure or guilt-ridden, or have a low self-esteem. It's a shame.

Young troll, you really are off your game, aren't you?

With the probable exception of your favourite body part*, you've quite lost your grip.

*
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

# wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 8:22pm: ... Apparently, those most susceptible to brainwashing are insecure or guilt-ridden, or have a low self-esteem. It's a shame. Young troll, you really are off your game, aren't you?

Nope, better than ever.

I've got you pegged.

Apparently, those most susceptible to brainwashing are insecure or guilt-ridden, or have a low self-esteem.

Tsk

# wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

namnugenot wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 10:51pm: ... someone with such obvious and limited understanding.  ... The difference is that I know it. To paraphrase a Confucian aphorism: Quote: The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he does not know. I've been studying the climate issue since the 1950s*. It eventually became clear that the subject is so complex that nobody who doesn't devote their life to it has any hope of developing a credible understanding. I have other things to do with my life, so I just heed the best. The vast majority of the best are as certain as possible that humanity is destabilising the climate. On the evidence of your behaviour, you lack both the necessary wisdom and the learning to realise the extent of your ignorance. * You do know that Al Gore didn't invent global warming, don't you?

Considering the free market liars love nuclear power they should know global warming was their marketing schtick in, of all places perth, back in the 60s so its certainly not knew and certainly not to the pro nuclear power con artist.... unless they are playing pretend

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 4:02pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. No they don't. The pay very little tax in Australia. e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero. 83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore. Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen

WTF Your sums are out Monkeybrain.

According to the annual report Fortesque paid $704 Million USD Tax in 2012 and $720 Million in 2013?

Fortesque also paid $3.69 BILLION Dollars to suppliers and employees in 2012 and $5.026 BILLION Dollars in 2013... :o

The suppliers pay tax and employ lots of people who also pay taxes and the Fortesque employees PAY TAX too on their earnings and spend their earnings at other businesses which employ more people.

That's a humungous boost to the Australian economy Chimp brain.

You're a sad little Pinko aren't you.... ::)

SOURCE read for yourself  :-?

Swagman wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 4:02pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. No they don't. The pay very little tax in Australia. e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero. 83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore. Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen WTF Your sums are out Monkeybrain. According to the annual report Fortesque paid [b]$704 Million USD Tax in 2012 and $720 Million in 2013?[/b] Fortesque also paid $3.69 BILLION Dollars to suppliers and employees in 2012 and $5.026 BILLION Dollars in 2013... :o The suppliers pay tax and employ lots of people who also pay taxes and the Fortesque employees PAY TAX too on their earnings and spend their earnings at other businesses which employ more people. That's a humungous boost to the Australian economy Chimp brain. You're a sad little Pinko aren't you.... ::) SOURCE read for yourself  :-?

Fortescue under fire for not paying tax
Updated Wed 9 Nov 2011

The Federal Government has attacked Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) chairman Andrew Forrest over the revelation his business has never paid company tax.

FMG head of government relations Julian Tapp told a parliamentary committee into the mining tax today that the company had not yet paid any company tax but was due to pay up to $800 million this financial

Link -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/fortescue-mining-company-tax/3655270
=========================================
It would seem a little overdue, as 2012 may have been the first year that Fortescue have paid tax, in their 22 year history.

Swagman wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 4:02pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 8:58am: This is your solution so that the mining and fossil fuel corporations don't have to pay their fair share of tax? That's the point they already pay their fair share of tax. They also employ lots pf people that pay income tax. They also indirectly provide business and infrstructure to communities that in turn pay taxes and employ more people. Go and have a latte', eat a banana and donate 90% of your dole cheque  to Greenpeace Chimp, you'll feel better. No they don't. The pay very little tax in Australia. e.g. Twiggy Forest is one of the richest people in Australia - top 4 at one stage. His company Fortesque, has been operating for at leas 22 years in Australia. Total tax paid during this period = zero. 83% of the mining industry is foreign owned and the dividends go offshore. Last financial year, the ATO released tax figures for the top 100 corporations in Australia. These are the big boys. Of the top 100, 40% didn't pay any tax at all for 2011/12. The remaining 60% paid on average about 13% tax on profits How much tax do you pay? I bet you wish you could get corporate welfare handouts, subsidies and tax breaks for your pathetic existence you filthy rotten skin of demented re-crystalised weasel semen WTF Your sums are out Monkeybrain. According to the annual report Fortesque paid $704 Million USD Tax in 2012 and $720 Million in 2013? Fortesque also paid $3.69 BILLION Dollars to suppliers and employees in 2012 and $5.026 BILLION Dollars in 2013... :o The suppliers pay tax and employ lots of people who also pay taxes and the Fortesque employees PAY TAX too on their earnings and spend their earnings at other businesses which employ more people. That's a humungous boost to the Australian economy Chimp brain. You're a sad little Pinko aren't you.... ::) SOURCE read for yourself  :-?

SWAGMAN LIES

SWAGMAN EXPOSED

Funny to watch this smelly freak fascist weasel post in this forum and defend the TAX EVADING Fortescue and the Greedy Twiggy

(if you ran a small business, you too would be paying SUPPLIERS, and employees, and when you make a profit YOU PAY tax on that profit - LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE you suckered in swag of skunk excrement)

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

It would seem a little overdue, as 2012 may have been the first year that Fortescue have paid tax, in their 22 year history

So it's overdue (so is that linked article).  But that's on par with Labor Govt's in this country. which haven't delivered a surplus in that period either.... ;D ;D ;D

Despite the lies of the Chimp,  :-?  Fortescue has now paid $1.4 Billion in the last 22 years ($63 Million per year on average and not including the money paid out to local suppliers and local employees) and the direct and indirect enterpsie generated from this investment.

You stupid lefties are totally incapable of thinking laterally. :-?

You want it all but criticise and bitch about the people that risk capital and their hard earned because they are successful. >:(

Swagman wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 8:36am: It would seem a little overdue, as 2012 may have been the first year that Fortescue have paid tax, in their 22 year history So it's overdue (so is that linked article).  But that's on par with Labor Govt's in this country. which haven't delivered a surplus in that period either.... ;D ;D ;D Despite the lies of the Chimp,  :-?  Fortescue has now paid $1.4 Billion in the last 22 years ($63 Million per year on average and not including the money paid out to local suppliers and local employees) and the direct and indirect enterpsie generated from this investment. You stupid lefties are totally incapable of thinking laterally. :-? You want it all but criticise and bitch about the people that risk capital and their hard earned because they are successful. >:(

OH NO , Fortescue paid SUPPLIERS and the wages of EMPLOYEES.

When the local pizza shop pays SUPPLIERS and its EMPLOYEES, guess what happens when they generate a profit at the end of the financial year? They PAY taxation at the company rate LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

But not the Big Boys - they get subsidies, and tax breaks and implement tax avoidance scams.

And you call others PINKOs for exposing this rort and criminality?

You sound like a standard Marxist for the rich and powerful corporations. You approve of corporate welfare

What a smelly skink the Swagman has been exposed as.

SWAGMAN's Flag

This fascist Freak cant even see the corporate chains that enslave him.

---

Seeing as Fortescue was merely a dream prior to 2006, with no income, why should they have paid tax. There may have been an entity back further, but Cloud Break was the first operational part.

Do you understand the time lags in opening a mine? The various approvals etc?

Sorry Chimp_Logic evades me.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 9:06am: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 8:36am: It would seem a little overdue, as 2012 may have been the first year that Fortescue have paid tax, in their 22 year history So it's overdue (so is that linked article).  But that's on par with Labor Govt's in this country. which haven't delivered a surplus in that period either.... ;D ;D ;D Despite the lies of the Chimp,  :-?  Fortescue has now paid $1.4 Billion in the last 22 years ($63 Million per year on average and not including the money paid out to local suppliers and local employees) and the direct and indirect enterpsie generated from this investment. You stupid lefties are totally incapable of thinking laterally. :-? You want it all but criticise and bitch about the people that risk capital and their hard earned because they are successful. >:( OH NO , Fortescue paid SUPPLIERS and the wages of EMPLOYEES. When the local pizza shop pays SUPPLIERS and its EMPLOYEES, guess what happens when they generate a profit at the end of the financial year? They PAY taxation at the company rate LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. But not the Big Boys - they get subsidies, and tax breaks and implement tax avoidance scams. And you call others PINKOs for exposing this rort and criminality? You sound like a standard Marxist for the rich and powerful corporations. You approve of corporate welfare What a smelly skink the Swagman has been exposed as.

What's wrong Chimpy?  Can't handle the truth even when it's served up to you.

Commies and Nazis were / are peas in a pod comrade.  Both socialists..........same street different houses that's all..

From the tripe you post and the way you rant and rave I'd suspect that you'd fit nicely in both.. ;D

But back on topic and PAGASA, the Phillipines Agency involved, by press release No. 6 from NDRRMC.gov.ph, for Yolanda, shows that sustained windspeed at landfall was 235 Kph or about 147 mph. A far cry from the earlier figures of JTWC.

And not in the top 10.

Swagman wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 9:12am: Swagman wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 9:06am: perceptions_now wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 8:36am: It would seem a little overdue, as 2012 may have been the first year that Fortescue have paid tax, in their 22 year history So it's overdue (so is that linked article).  But that's on par with Labor Govt's in this country. which haven't delivered a surplus in that period either.... ;D ;D ;D Despite the lies of the Chimp,  :-?  Fortescue has now paid $1.4 Billion in the last 22 years ($63 Million per year on average and not including the money paid out to local suppliers and local employees) and the direct and indirect enterpsie generated from this investment. You stupid lefties are totally incapable of thinking laterally. :-? You want it all but criticise and bitch about the people that risk capital and their hard earned because they are successful. >:( OH NO , Fortescue paid SUPPLIERS and the wages of EMPLOYEES. When the local pizza shop pays SUPPLIERS and its EMPLOYEES, guess what happens when they generate a profit at the end of the financial year? They PAY taxation at the company rate LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. But not the Big Boys - they get subsidies, and tax breaks and implement tax avoidance scams. And you call others PINKOs for exposing this rort and criminality? You sound like a standard Marxist for the rich and powerful corporations. You approve of corporate welfare What a smelly skink the Swagman has been exposed as. What's wrong Chimpy?  Can't handle the truth even when it's served up to you. Commies and Nazis were / are peas in a pod comrade.  Both socialists..........same street different houses that's all.. From the tripe you post and the way you rant and rave I'd suspect that you'd fit nicely in both.. ;D

Oh Whats wrong Swagdung?

Did you get exposed as a right wing materialistic fascist corporatist in public AGAIN?

....you putrid de-fragmented slob of warthog filth excrement mould stench

---

Kinda cute - can I have it as an avatar?

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Kinda cute - can I have it as an avatar?

He looks happy all right.

I think he's had a meal of chimp....

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

... If you disagree with David B ( # ), he'll call you a troll. ...

Ajax must be waiting with bated breath.  ;D

No, young troll, disagreeing won't get you called a troll. Trolling will.


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

# wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 7:56pm: ...Young wanker*, you're losing your touch. au contraire I'm better than ever.

Evidently not. I mentioned my doubts about namnugenot a while back. It's taken you this long to take the bait. You're definitely slipping.

*
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Kinda cute - can I have it as an avatar?

warthog's are actually quite brave and fierce fighters - they have been known to injure or even kill lions with their tusks

you are welcome to this particular filthy mud ridden warthog stench

His IQ is higher than Swagmans (about 34.6% higher)

A warthog with an IQ 201.9? :D

Swagman wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:

A warthog with an IQ 201.9? :D

Exactly

(if you take the modulus)