>They have to buy carbon credits,

You don't think they pass that cost onto the consumer?

>and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.

Yes, making a carbon credit a valuable commodity. When one company makes a business decision that happens to align with reduced carbon output they earn a credit which they are allowed to sell. They are selling air pollution indulgences like the catholic church. There are literally companies created to mine carbon credits.

Another company buys the credit so the net pollution savings is zero if a credit didn't have to go through an exchange which can limit the exchange rate. It's still really close to zero because of the added industry of the exchange bureaucracy, if not actually creating more pollution.

In the end they are trading air rights, specifically the right to pollute it. Then if a government buys the credit they tax to pay for it. If a business buys a credit they add it to their overhead costs which 100% gets passed to the customer.

Since the entire carbon credits scheme is neutral at best the result is they are selling air.

It seems like we're 100% back on the same page since you've acknowledged carbon credits must be purchased. I've only explained how business works.

>I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.

I also did not say this. Are you ok?

I'm pretty sure you're now pointing your insults at yourself.

I implied companies are selling air in the form of carbon credits. Wikipedia agrees with me, but I'll concede it's a source that should be edited by you if you don't agree with us. I'm not an expert as you're implying you are. I've deferred to your expertise twice and you had this to say:

>you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?

People that concede to your expertise are morons? I withdraw my concession at your insistence. Now we're back to square one, companies have started to sell air you breath.

>A carbon credit is a tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit a set amount of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of a different greenhouse gas.

Please edit the Wikipedia page to reflect that it has nothing to do with air and isn't a form of added value. It's clearly wrong because you know so much.

Carbon credits have nothing to do with charging companies who pass the cost on to consumers for carbon going into the air... Got it, thanks.

Carbon credits. They're doing it already.

No, I'm saying once the benevolent portion of the plan is finished a terrorist could turn it into a weapon. I don't care how benevolent a plan you suggest any new technology will be weaponized.

It's like you're trying to suggest terrorists invented bombs with their own R&D to come to the conclusion you did.

You didn't prove anything. So there's that. You just want to lie and you offered no proof for your position that the governments of the world don't automatically seek to weaponize any new technology.

There's actually plenty of evidence on your side at least in the short term, but you chose to shit on my rock solid proof that nuclear energy production also wasn't proposed to the public as a weapon first. You chose to ignore actual fact, produce no evidence all the while I took every one of your examples and proved you don't know what you're talking about, or specifically lying.

I don't know which one it is, nor does it matter because either way you clearly enjoy funding war.

I'm done with you.

Good afternoon.

Ok then, have fun war mongering. You seem happy to war monger and wish to continue to war monger. I'd wish normal people peace but you're all too happy to fund new ways to kill each other by repeating and repeating the mistakes (sorry that's my opinion, you're probably seeing them as successes) of the past.

But, you know you can't get normal people on board with it unless you lie about the past and of course lie about the future.

Good afternoon.

>Holy shit your blatant ignorance to the Manhatten Project is astounding.

Back at you. You really think they didn't prototype an energy reactor?

>It was never considered an "accidental bomb" its entire purpose was to produce plutonium.

Wrong it used very expensive natural uranium. About 5 tons with an additional 40+ tons of uranium oxide and several truckloads of graphite. I honestly can't remember those exact details but the reactor was created prior to the bomb because it was inevitable and to test the theory that a reaction wouldn't run away indefinitely. The reactor created by the Manhattan project ran for about a year before being moved and rebuilt and then ran for another decade.

I'm sure a super fan of government war craft can probably look up the specifics.

>Name a single physicist at that time that was talking about it as a inevitable fact that it would be an energy source.

Here's a nobody that applied for a patent in 1936, you clearly don't know him LEO SZILARD. I didn't have to look up his name, I didn't have to look up the timing of the patent and as I suspected it was a couple years before the Manhattan project started.

This reactor patent did come to him in a dream. It was theoretical for at least a decade with much input from the physical chemistry community as a whole.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=630726&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP

>Not a great way to fire a weapon if everyone can see what you are doing for 3 years.

I don't think they're trying to hide it. Did you skip past the part where I said putting them in lunar orbit? It would take a push of the button at precisely the right time to send one to earth. Once they've been reduced to the appropriate size for the deviation they want to cause.

Even worse is if I'm wrong and a government isn't behind it but a terrorist. I'm telling you any perceived good is outweighed by the inevitable bad.

>This will never be used as a weapon. It can't be.

You're saying basically it's impossible to do what they did. And you seem to also think that practice doesn't make perfect.

>I hope that you are either still in school and haven't taken basic 9th grade physics yet or have just forgotten what you have learned.

I've taught physics at a collegic level. This is barely a physics problem and more of an economic problem. We already know we can divert astroids, how much will it cost to put it where we want it?

You're probably unaware of proposals to aim astroids into a Mars orbit for mining. Mars orbit before lunar orbit just to prove we won't make accidents. Lunar orbits rather than earth orbits because we actually don't need much material back on earth. Only to replace the materials we sent to space. And of course it's an extra risk.

The idea of mining astroids in place is too dangerous and too costly as it's simply easier to bring things to the mill rather than moving mining operations so often. It's why we don't build a saw mill in every tree grove for lumber production, we move the logs to the mill.

>That was never the purpose of Fermi's research.

I never said it was.

>Please do explain how weak interaction (Fermi's interaction) was the study of clean energy.

It was the study of its potential use, who said he first that thought of use as an energy source?

Forget that question, how was it research to make a bomb specifically?

In fact so many people were talking about it as a use for an energy source that it seemed like a universal inevitable conclusion to Fermi's findings and therefore it would likely be impossible to point at who said clean energy first.

Should I point out that your favorite weapon making project first produced an energy reactor? Probably not because you don't think clean energy was the focus of the discovery before the government tried to weaponize it. In fact many at the time were saying that an energy reactor could cause it to be an accidental bomb which is what peeked the war machine's interest into turning it into an on purpose bomb.

1932 a decade before a government got involved

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_power

1942 a government seeks to weaponize a new technology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

You're welcome

>they wouldn't have been able to correct its course enough to hit the target.

Which is probably why you support more funding. We haven't perfected the weapon yet.

>And yes, humans are the main cause of the current mass extinction event.

Glad we can agree. So instead of stopping that we keep that moving forward by sending resources to space.

>Yeah, like how the smallpox vaccine program was really about weaponization. /s

You don't know that it wasn't government funded research? Seriously? You put /s as if you think the opposite of what you wrote. Which means you think the government decided to fund medical advancements back in late 1700s. They didn't, specifically England didn't.

Governments have however funded the weaponizing of vaccine technology with little success.

>You are completely wrong.

Then you go on to explain how I'm completely correct... I'm confused. The government poured money into nuclear energy only to weaponize it. Your explanation is out of fear that someone would weaponize it.

Fear realized!

But we'll never do anything like that again, right? We're interested in controlling astroids for good not evil, but if one other person says it could be used for evil you think we'll definitely not repeat an endless cycle of history. I'm sceptical.

>Sure, a lot space technologies can have military applications. So what?

You support war funding. That's all, not peace funding. You should just be honest with yourself. You're about self preservation and "protecting the planet" is incidental if it happens. It's the least important thing to you, but at least it's on the list.

If you don't, that means you literally didn't pay attention to history and are excited to repeat it.

>We (humans) weren't around for those 5 mass extinctions.

So what.

>The 6th mass extinction will very likely take us with it.

Doubt it. Humans will be the cause of human extinction. At that rate it's not an extinction it's darwinism. Spending money on diverting astroids is proof of what I'm saying.

>spinoff technology

I've heard of this. Perhaps you've heard of every kind of government funding into research ever is for weaponizing the stated goal. We wouldn't have nuclear bombs if it wasn't for the benevolent purpose of finding clean energy.

This goes for any significant government funding into research. Its true purpose is war, under the lie of something more benign.

If we can get a vehicle to an asteroid using math, I'm pretty sure there's an equally simple formula to get on to earth at the appropriate time and space.

To speculate otherwise shows how dangerous you think the technology is at its current situation.

>So the best case scenario is that we have the data available to make a correction to the orbit of such an object if we need to.

Wow, best case you can imagine is super limited. I thought for sure you'd go into astroid wrangling for convenience of mining. Nope, you're happy with, probably not going to need it, but if we spend an unbelievably higher amount of money then we might just maybe not kill ourselves unintentionally simultaneously ignoring petty issues on the big blue marble.

I'm just more confident that this technology will be used specifically to aim astroids at Earth. How do I know? Humans always say, "but this time it will be different." Sure resting on the fact that it's a technical difference in weapons, major advances that could change human civilization always, 100% of the time, get weaponized.

This is no different.

So you say we survived 5, but a sixth is just crazy?

I think an asteroid is a natural course of nature and no amount of human involvement will overcome anything nature has to throw at us.

That being said, how is allowing people to die today of today's problems with these misspent funds going to save those same people in the future should an extremely unlikely event like an asteroid that we happen to detect in time to divert?

>Do you like professional sports?

Nope

>All the money paid to pro athletes should be used for real problems.

Agreed

>Do you enjoy a morning cup of coffee?

Nope

>All that money should be used for real problems.

Some of that money is already solving real problems.

>How much do you spend on alcohol? How about your lawn? I could go on.

Zero, zero, please do.

>If you aren't willing to give up these basically useless things, why should I be willing to give up on the advancement of science.

Done, now put your money where your mouth is.

Or answer this question: what's the best case scenario you can imagine that this research will help Earth?

From where I sit this planet has survived far worse than an asteroid impact. Any argument for continuing to waste money deflecting astroids is akin to watching drug dealers pimping their ride and saying to yourself, "welp, they could be out there selling drugs instead of investing in a clean hobby." Of course, neither is productive unless you're the car parts salesman.

I always said Gattaca would have been a better movie if it had a few hallway puzzles.

The Labyrinth was probably the peak hallway puzzle movie. It was nice that Good Will Hunting gave it a nod.

As well as the typical areas near Flagstaff I'm going to suggest making a trip to the West Rim. It costs money because it belongs to the Hualapai. So that means other park passes don't apply.

I think it's worth the view if for no other reason than the lack of guard rails. Of course I may be more thrilled by that than someone with good depth perception but with no barrier to warn you, it's a more natural view.

The west Rim is worth it at least once.

I used to live in AZ. I've been to the grand canyon several times. I suffer from poor depth perception. What you see in the photo I pretty much see in real life.

I use context clues to gauge distance and I am often better than some when a distance is greater than a couple hundred meters. At the grand canyon I have no such context clues normally.

One time I go and am with people who are seeing it for the first time. I look down and can see the Colorado River as I had a hundred times before. It's late November and near noon. We're on the north side and the shadow of our rim can be seen on the canyon floor almost to the river bank.

Before this day I only had the perception of great distance because our human body shadows were too small to me made out on top of the rim. The double slit experiment would also indicate that a single human shadow would be faint if I had a telescope to see that far more clearly.

On this day, I see a helicopter. I see the top of a helicopter. I see it's shadow at an angle so far away from the top edge of the rim shadow. I can tell the helicopter is far by its smallness and the shadow displacement. I can tell the grandeur of the canyon for the first time. I think I was more in awe than the people I brought.

Also manual sync for calendar and email. I don't have a Samsung but my old LG used to have a sync when charging option that I wish I had that on my Motorola.

Otherwise it would sync if I opened the app.