Revenue != profit. If traders in those markets can get carbon emission credits to cap under actual demand consistently, then they can drive up the volume to far higher and scoop profits that make the oil business look like chump change.
Also, ever wonder why oil is seeing record profits at this time? AGW mitigation is coupled with all sorts of stuff that restricts competition in the fossil fuel industry, such as regulation that has prevented any new refineries from being built in the US for decades. Why should they oppose AGW?
If Germany is increasing its power exports with a $130B investment (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/), Imagine what they could do with $500B.
It's called throwing good money after bad. I'm not at all impressed with how Germany can squander half a trillion dollars.
As for political motherlodes, what do you call the 10's of millions the Koch brothers spend on lobbying every year?
Pocket change, especially since they don't spend that much. They've supposed spent just under $200 million in total on various things, including anti-AGW stuff. That's slightly more than a year's funding for the World Wildlife Fund, one of the larger AGW advocates.
Where's the governments and their huge cash flows on that left hand side? It's also worth noting that those "regional environmental groups and community activists", some which are fairly large, global businesses in their own right, outspend those "big oil companies" in this particular arena.
Why is it that the two major scientific disputes that have now have one side with a huge vested interest in keeping science down?
As I noted in my original reply, the AGW side has the better funding and engages in remarkably unscientific debate, even among its scientific supporters.
Scientists faced exactly the same forces in the past when they tackled the dangers of asbestos, as well as tobacco smoking. Even back then the motives of scientists were questioned to discredit the message. Who turned out to be right then? Your idea that there is more money in proving AGW is not backed by historical precedent.
There has been a vast increase in public funding for pro-AGW activities such as carbon markets and renewable energy. As to the tobacco smoking and asbestos issues, it is worth noting that there turned out to be big money in lawsuits and similar activities. And this did distort the science in those two fields (witness the hubbub about third hand smoking, for example).
There are thousands of universities... all learning stuff about the universe.
Nonsense. The big money for most such universities (which happen to be in the US) is loan subsidies and guarantees from the federal government and the uncritical research funding through NSF, DOD, and similar bodies. Climate change money is substantial and I believe it has corrupted the scientific integrity of the entire field of climatology, but that's peanuts compared to the vast river of funding from the federal government.
How about all the money that the developed world is pouring into renewable energy, both directly and via subsidy and loan guarantees? For example, Germany sunk $130 billion into solar power subsidies in recent years. The US stimulus bill from 2009 dumped $80 billion into renewable energy. That's big money right there.
There's also big money to be had in the carbon trade markets. $180 billion worth of carbon dioxide emission credits were outstanding in 2011. If the cap credits is restricted more than the very generous amounts today and remains "hard" (that is, no expansion of emission credits at any price), then there's a lot of opportunity for vast profits. This alone has the potential to dwarf the profits to be had from fossil fuels. But it requires societies willing to harm their economies in order to prop up carbon emission credit prices and trader profits. That's where AGW hysteria becomes very profitable to support.
Then there's the politicians who benefit from the power and money flow of engorged regulatory bureaucracies supporting new carbon emission regulations and renewable energy production. No similar bureaucratic motherlode exists for fossil fuel development.
I learned how human CO2 production has been increasing exponentially.
What is the rate of increase?
I learned how small shifts in ocean temperatures put far more moisture into the air, producing more severe storms.
Given no one else has "learned" that, I'm going to have to say that you're wrong here.
the other half still leads to the same conclusion: Our society is royally screwed because of global warming, and we're making it worse every day.
Based on what evidence? If one looks at actual evidence and predictions, there's no such claim made. You've again learned something that just isn't so.
Regardless of what preposterous scare-tactic forecasts are made, there is still too much evidence for me to ignore.
I don't think you're as successful as you think you are.
We should strive to make our pollution as harmless as we can, and keep our industrial processes as flexible as we can to allow future change if similar problems are discovered.
No. We have other priorities than simply less harmful pollution.There's seven billion people on this planet which we are helping out of poverty and despair. That's far more important than slightly less CO2 in the atmosphere.
The same ones who are just as skeptical as a Republican congressman, but just happen to be playing for the other side? Tell me more.
To be blunt, there's more money and power riding on proving AGW is an urgent problem than there is money against it from the fossil fuel side. It doesn't help to ignorantly speak of the science without understanding that there are vast forces biasing that science.
Since GR implies that the curvature of spacetime is affected directly by the matter/energy content and its distribution, it is inherently immune to simplification in any coordinate system
[...]
GR is the principle, claiming the math we use around it is what defines it is false.
Who said anything about simplication? A universal covering by a bunch of local coordinate systems coupled with change of coordinate rules is how the GR model is described. This is a fact not an assumption. The math indeed defines GR.
But GR doesn't fully describe actual reality in which, among other things, one can observe three other forces and quantum effects. That's also a fact.
Then show the evidence for this claim. Don't just say it. Keep in mind that because Hamas isn't following the rules of war as specified by the Geneva Conventions, then they waive most of the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions.
For a company like HP, which has practically nothing in investment gains, lawsuit settlements, or other non-revenue income sources, their only income is revenue.
But the converse is not true. Most revenue is not income. Read your link:
Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does -- whether making goods or providing services. Other sources of funds -- including investment gains -- are usually labeled as such but also included as revenue. (Occasionally, you'll see this number referred to as "gross income.")
"Net income" is the phrase commonly used to refer to a company's "profit." It represents how much money the company has left over, if any, after it's paid the costs of doing business -- payroll, raw materials, taxes, interest on loans, etc..
You're (falsely) assuming that employers will only censor their employees.
Not at all. I'm correctly assuming that ISPs and internet cafes don't censor their customers, who pay them money, like they do their employees. Because that is how it happens in the real world. I think you're wasting my time.
Terrestrial life accumulates carbon from the atmosphere where it is created by solar and cosmic radiation interacting with the high nitrogen content of the Earth's atmosphere. A number of those steps probably don't happen on Mars. Nitrogen is far less dense so there's far less production of carbon 14. Organisms even if they do absorb carbon would probably be located well below the surface of Mars and hence, unlikely to be exposed to carbon 14.
Or losing $8.8 billion isn't that big of a deal to a company with revenues of $127 billion.
Look at their income. If it weren't for the almost $11 billion in unusual expenses they incurred this quarter, they would have earned about $5 billion in net profits. Instead, they lost over $5 billion for the year. That's more than two year's worth of profit gone up in smoke. It doesn't take many of those to make a bankrupt company.
Those coordinate systems are more than just an approximation. They are the way we define space-time and everything else in the GR model completely. Each local neighborhood has its own coordinate system and different systems are consistent where they overlap via change of coordinates.
GR is defined in terms of manifolds with a Minkowski space-time metric. Local coordinate systems for every point of the manifold, which are where they overlap consistent via change of coordinates, are inherent parts of the theory.
Roughly a quarter helium as well and traces of other elements (particularly lithium) which I guess you could dump in the catchall, "seasonings and spices". It gets more interesting when you consider isotope spread as well.
Their leader, in a car, on a public street, is a legitimate military target in your mind?
Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
If Hamas hit Netanyahu or Lieberman this way you would call that a fair strike then?
If they followed the rules of war in doing so, then yes, I would. First, they have to declare war in some way. Then they have to send in their guys in uniform so that they are clearly distinguished from civilians. Do you see where I'm going with this?
What is "GM" here? "Gravitational Mechanics"? The book?
One doesn't require Minkowski (not Euclidean) space-time in order to have space-time coordinates. All that is needed is for every point of your space-time to have a local coordinate system and for these coordinate systems and the models on top of them to be consistent with each other via change of coordinates (of both coordinates and models). This has been done.
The fact that you don't see the light of an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As I note, you aren't in a situation to determine whether an event happened or not until that event passes into your past light cone. A big point to make at this time is that there are places and frames of reference where your current state and the event can be observed to happen in either order. These always exist.
Hence, it is incorrect to state that the event has or hasn't happened yet. It can end up happening before or after your current state, depending on some observer's point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats over a third of Exxon's revenue for 2011!
Revenue != profit. If traders in those markets can get carbon emission credits to cap under actual demand consistently, then they can drive up the volume to far higher and scoop profits that make the oil business look like chump change.
Also, ever wonder why oil is seeing record profits at this time? AGW mitigation is coupled with all sorts of stuff that restricts competition in the fossil fuel industry, such as regulation that has prevented any new refineries from being built in the US for decades. Why should they oppose AGW?
If Germany is increasing its power exports with a $130B investment (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/), Imagine what they could do with $500B.
It's called throwing good money after bad. I'm not at all impressed with how Germany can squander half a trillion dollars.
As for political motherlodes, what do you call the 10's of millions the Koch brothers spend on lobbying every year?
Pocket change, especially since they don't spend that much. They've supposed spent just under $200 million in total on various things, including anti-AGW stuff. That's slightly more than a year's funding for the World Wildlife Fund, one of the larger AGW advocates.
Where's the governments and their huge cash flows on that left hand side? It's also worth noting that those "regional environmental groups and community activists", some which are fairly large, global businesses in their own right, outspend those "big oil companies" in this particular arena.
Slap some solar panels on the side of your house. Speculate in your local carbon emissions credit market. Drive an electric car.
Why is it that the two major scientific disputes that have now have one side with a huge vested interest in keeping science down?
As I noted in my original reply, the AGW side has the better funding and engages in remarkably unscientific debate, even among its scientific supporters.
Scientists faced exactly the same forces in the past when they tackled the dangers of asbestos, as well as tobacco smoking. Even back then the motives of scientists were questioned to discredit the message. Who turned out to be right then? Your idea that there is more money in proving AGW is not backed by historical precedent.
There has been a vast increase in public funding for pro-AGW activities such as carbon markets and renewable energy. As to the tobacco smoking and asbestos issues, it is worth noting that there turned out to be big money in lawsuits and similar activities. And this did distort the science in those two fields (witness the hubbub about third hand smoking, for example).
There are thousands of universities... all learning stuff about the universe.
Nonsense. The big money for most such universities (which happen to be in the US) is loan subsidies and guarantees from the federal government and the uncritical research funding through NSF, DOD, and similar bodies. Climate change money is substantial and I believe it has corrupted the scientific integrity of the entire field of climatology, but that's peanuts compared to the vast river of funding from the federal government.
How about all the money that the developed world is pouring into renewable energy, both directly and via subsidy and loan guarantees? For example, Germany sunk $130 billion into solar power subsidies in recent years. The US stimulus bill from 2009 dumped $80 billion into renewable energy. That's big money right there.
There's also big money to be had in the carbon trade markets. $180 billion worth of carbon dioxide emission credits were outstanding in 2011. If the cap credits is restricted more than the very generous amounts today and remains "hard" (that is, no expansion of emission credits at any price), then there's a lot of opportunity for vast profits. This alone has the potential to dwarf the profits to be had from fossil fuels. But it requires societies willing to harm their economies in order to prop up carbon emission credit prices and trader profits. That's where AGW hysteria becomes very profitable to support.
Then there's the politicians who benefit from the power and money flow of engorged regulatory bureaucracies supporting new carbon emission regulations and renewable energy production. No similar bureaucratic motherlode exists for fossil fuel development.
I learned how human CO2 production has been increasing exponentially.
What is the rate of increase?
I learned how small shifts in ocean temperatures put far more moisture into the air, producing more severe storms.
Given no one else has "learned" that, I'm going to have to say that you're wrong here.
the other half still leads to the same conclusion: Our society is royally screwed because of global warming, and we're making it worse every day.
Based on what evidence? If one looks at actual evidence and predictions, there's no such claim made. You've again learned something that just isn't so.
Regardless of what preposterous scare-tactic forecasts are made, there is still too much evidence for me to ignore.
I don't think you're as successful as you think you are.
We should strive to make our pollution as harmless as we can, and keep our industrial processes as flexible as we can to allow future change if similar problems are discovered.
No. We have other priorities than simply less harmful pollution.There's seven billion people on this planet which we are helping out of poverty and despair. That's far more important than slightly less CO2 in the atmosphere.
It also ignores the real skeptics: scientists.
The same ones who are just as skeptical as a Republican congressman, but just happen to be playing for the other side? Tell me more.
To be blunt, there's more money and power riding on proving AGW is an urgent problem than there is money against it from the fossil fuel side. It doesn't help to ignorantly speak of the science without understanding that there are vast forces biasing that science.
Since GR implies that the curvature of spacetime is affected directly by the matter/energy content and its distribution, it is inherently immune to simplification in any coordinate system
[...]
GR is the principle, claiming the math we use around it is what defines it is false.
Who said anything about simplication? A universal covering by a bunch of local coordinate systems coupled with change of coordinate rules is how the GR model is described. This is a fact not an assumption. The math indeed defines GR.
But GR doesn't fully describe actual reality in which, among other things, one can observe three other forces and quantum effects. That's also a fact.
Because Hamas isn't following the rules of war
Neither is Israel.
Then show the evidence for this claim. Don't just say it. Keep in mind that because Hamas isn't following the rules of war as specified by the Geneva Conventions, then they waive most of the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions.
For a company like HP, which has practically nothing in investment gains, lawsuit settlements, or other non-revenue income sources, their only income is revenue.
But the converse is not true. Most revenue is not income. Read your link:
Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does -- whether making goods or providing services. Other sources of funds -- including investment gains -- are usually labeled as such but also included as revenue. (Occasionally, you'll see this number referred to as "gross income.")
"Net income" is the phrase commonly used to refer to a company's "profit." It represents how much money the company has left over, if any, after it's paid the costs of doing business -- payroll, raw materials, taxes, interest on loans, etc..
It'd probably be a few months waiting until the heat goes away. They're not in a big hurry.
You're (falsely) assuming that employers will only censor their employees.
Not at all. I'm correctly assuming that ISPs and internet cafes don't censor their customers, who pay them money, like they do their employees. Because that is how it happens in the real world. I think you're wasting my time.
Why does Hamas have to do that before they hit the IDF, but the IDF doesnt have to do that before hitting Hamas?
Because Hamas attacked first or there was a clear and present danger provoking an Israeli attack (such as happened during the Six Days War in 1967).
Because Hamas isn't following the rules of war, I can't be bothered to be concerned about what happens to them or their supporters.
Gross income is the $127 billion figure I quoted.
No, it's not. It's revenue>/b>.
No, but life accumulates carbon.
Terrestrial life accumulates carbon from the atmosphere where it is created by solar and cosmic radiation interacting with the high nitrogen content of the Earth's atmosphere. A number of those steps probably don't happen on Mars. Nitrogen is far less dense so there's far less production of carbon 14. Organisms even if they do absorb carbon would probably be located well below the surface of Mars and hence, unlikely to be exposed to carbon 14.
Discovering free oxygen would be a very big deal
How about the perchlorates that we already know exist on Mars? Some of those only need to be heated up a little to create free oxygen.
Or losing $8.8 billion isn't that big of a deal to a company with revenues of $127 billion.
Look at their income. If it weren't for the almost $11 billion in unusual expenses they incurred this quarter, they would have earned about $5 billion in net profits. Instead, they lost over $5 billion for the year. That's more than two year's worth of profit gone up in smoke. It doesn't take many of those to make a bankrupt company.
Those coordinate systems are more than just an approximation. They are the way we define space-time and everything else in the GR model completely. Each local neighborhood has its own coordinate system and different systems are consistent where they overlap via change of coordinates.
God knows it did. It is absolute.
Where's the evidence for the God point of view? And there's still no absolute ordering of events.
GR is defined in terms of manifolds with a Minkowski space-time metric. Local coordinate systems for every point of the manifold, which are where they overlap consistent via change of coordinates, are inherent parts of the theory.
Roughly a quarter helium as well and traces of other elements (particularly lithium) which I guess you could dump in the catchall, "seasonings and spices". It gets more interesting when you consider isotope spread as well.
Their leader, in a car, on a public street, is a legitimate military target in your mind?
Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
If Hamas hit Netanyahu or Lieberman this way you would call that a fair strike then?
If they followed the rules of war in doing so, then yes, I would. First, they have to declare war in some way. Then they have to send in their guys in uniform so that they are clearly distinguished from civilians. Do you see where I'm going with this?
What is "GM" here? "Gravitational Mechanics"? The book?
One doesn't require Minkowski (not Euclidean) space-time in order to have space-time coordinates. All that is needed is for every point of your space-time to have a local coordinate system and for these coordinate systems and the models on top of them to be consistent with each other via change of coordinates (of both coordinates and models). This has been done.
The fact that you don't see the light of an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As I note, you aren't in a situation to determine whether an event happened or not until that event passes into your past light cone. A big point to make at this time is that there are places and frames of reference where your current state and the event can be observed to happen in either order. These always exist.
Hence, it is incorrect to state that the event has or hasn't happened yet. It can end up happening before or after your current state, depending on some observer's point of view.