For a company like Greyhound those would be considered fixed assets and would be depreciated according to a depreciation schedule.
FYI if the assets aren't in service they wouldn't be depreciated. Only once they are put in service is depreciation started.
1000's of experts? and the chinese government? And the european governments?
Explain How that work in the age of the internet? Explain how simple tests that can be done in any university and most high school is being kept down?
REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.
Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.
There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.
When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands
I've got bad news for you.
If we keep emitting CO2 it will end civilization. People can only breath so much CO2 and still function.
CIvilization also depends upon clean water as a resource, and we depend on the ocean.
Not tomorrow, but eventually. All of that is just facts.
"are you seriously denying the truth of my statement "this study reaches its headlined/highlighted conclusions by adjusting data"."
YES, because it's wrong and show a complete ignorance of science.
I'm not a climatologist.
Then shut up.
" However, I understand science and statistics "
The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".
This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."
Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
But what do I know?
As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse
* Make me a Manhattan.
"POOF! You are a Manhattan" - Dad drone.
And I suppose you would launch it by pressing the 'G' button on your steering wheel?
Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.