hi laura,
i've posted this question way back on one of your articles but i haven't recieve any response from you yet. maybe the other people posting on this blog could also help me out in getting information about this question(and i also tried researching on the matter but unfortunately i haven't found any answers yet. well, heres the question; if this global warming is true (and lets assume that its already happening) wouldnt it be likely that the more heat is on the planet then more evaporation will take effect which in turn, will produce more clouds and consequently block the sun (if not minimize sun's rays?. if my assumption is correct, then that means that clouds will act like a thermostat that will regulate heat on the planet.
i know that the atmosphere can only handle much of water molecules to some extent and humidity also plays a role in cloud formation. i am not that knowledgeable enough about how the weather works but i just wanna know if my assumption will be probable. thanks

The recent Senate threats to Exxon are clearly unconstitutional. Since the Federal Goverment stands to make billions in potential carbon credits, it cannot be said the Senate is some disinterested bystander only wishing to the best for the public. Even private individuals like ALGORE have made quite a hansome sum of money on his current Magical Mystery Tour spreading the climate alarmists point of view.

To say the sharehollders cannot be allowed to spend money in order to protect thier assests from confiscatory taxation shows how undemocratic the alarmists are.

I applaud Senators Rockefeller and Snowe for their calling out ExxonMobil on funding the climate change "denier" organizations and "scientists". $19 million is not a pittance to me or anyone I know in order to put forth propoganda that they knowingly use to mislead and outright lie to the public. ExxonMobil should be ashamed of itself. However, it seems as if ethics and morality is relative when it comes to the energy execs and their incessant greed.

Addressing the "incessant greed" of the energy execs.

In a very basic business sense, energy companies don't "owe" any money to anyone other than their shareholders and debt holders. That being said, generally companies do invest in their communities to generate Goodwill.

Anyway, on to the incessant greed. Are "evil oil companies" more greedy than others?

For reference, compare the following companies and their Net Profit Margin. All data is from MSN Money for 2005:

* Apple Computer 9.9%
* Exxon Mobil 11.0%
* IBM 9.3%
* General Electric 11.4%
* Bank of America 19.4%
* Chevron 7.6%
* PepsiCo 12.5%

Margins are pretty much in line. But is seems like your bank could be sticking it to you while drinking your Dew. How do these numbers compare to the Gross Revenues?

* Apple Computer 16 B
* Exxon Mobil 328 B
* IBM 89 B
* General Electric 145 B
* Bank of America 85 B
* Chevron 185 B
* PepsiCo 33 B

Comparatively, oil companies are no more "greedy" than other companies. However, there are those that choose to only report on the actual dollar amount as an alarmist tool.

One other point. Why is it so wrong for energy companies to fund research? Don't organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace fund research too? If one applies the argument equally, then all research funded by these groups (oil companies, environmental groups, etc) should be ignored since it is "obviously" biased.

According to opensecrets.org Jay Rockeller since 1989 has accepted $155,000 from the mining industry and $233,000 from oil and gas. Who is he to tell the CEO of EOM anything? But this does pale beside the $900,000 from legal interests. Perhaps his buddies in the big law firms expect to get some of the global warming litigation if old Jay can keep things stirred up.

RE: Storm

Hey, Storm,
I've been saying that for years. If we do go into a "climate warming" Period it will be followed more likely by a violent ice age than a period of scorching temperatures for the exact reasons you mentioned.

I'm not sure why no one else has mentioned it...

I read Sloan's complaint when that editorial was published. Sloan isn't the only scientist to complain about his treatment by the recognized science journals and it is one of the main reasons I have criticized them in several of my posts to this site.

Companies have every right to fund the research that supports their business, and the energy companies recognize that the global warmers want to do them financial harm. The scientists who are skeptical of global warming are having a difficult time finding funding. If they can get it from energy companies - more power to them.

$19 million is a not much of a research budget, so I hope they are finding other deep pockets to fund them as well. Now if they could only find some respectable science journals. (I truly don't believe there are any.)

Comparatively, oil companies are no more "greedy" than other companies. However, there are those that choose to only report on the actual dollar amount as an alarmist tool.

Talk about cherry-picking data, where on earth do you get the idea that net profit margin is a representative indicator?

The last time I checked, this nation was not spending hundreds of billions of dollars to look out for the business interests of Apple Computer. I don't think Darth Cheney spent weeks behind closed doors setting national policy with the executives of Pepsico. The profit margin of General Electric does NOT come directly out of the non-discretionary spending of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I don't remember any of the companies you enumerated paying out anything LIKE the FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR "retirement settlement" paid out to Lee Raymond.

I don't know what you call "greed", but here's what I call a reasonably canonical example:

Paying one individual, no matter how stellar, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS while this country is spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, the blood of thousands of military and hundreds of thousands of civilian fatalities propping up this company's future, while millions of Americans are suffering from a rapid jump in the price of gasoline, and while profits are simultaneously setting record levels. As far as I'm concerned, THAT'S greed. Brought to you by the folks who proclaim themselves the guardians of "moral values".

So Greg -- please tell us, just for the record, is there ANY threshold that YOU feel would constitute "greed"? Is the thrust of your argument that all companies are greedy, so that we unfairly single out Exxon/Mobil? By what standard, if any, should we determine greed?

Tom,

Wow, I didn't think even YOU could go off on such a left wing binge. Surprise, surprise. Using your quote:

"Talk about cherry-picking data"

"The last time I checked, this nation was not spending hundreds of billions of dollars to look out for the business interests of Apple Computer. I don't think Darth Cheney spent weeks behind closed doors setting national policy with the executives of Pepsico."

* Nice conspiratorial paragraph.

"The profit margin of General Electric does NOT come directly out of the non-discretionary spending of the overwhelming majority of Americans."

Yes it does! Lighting products, air travel, electric generation, medical care, and communications. All businesses that GE is in, and all areas that affect the average american.

"I don't remember any of the companies you enumerated paying out anything LIKE the FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR "retirement settlement" paid out to Lee Raymond."

Class envy? Are you that mad? Those payments are the decision of the Board of Directors. They have the shareholders to answer to.

"Paying one individual, no matter how stellar, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS while this country is spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, the blood of thousands of military and hundreds of thousands of civilian fatalities propping up this company's future, while millions of Americans are suffering from a rapid jump in the price of gasoline, and while profits are simultaneously setting record levels.

More class envy....

Followed predictably by a including Iraq (which doesn't make any sense for this blog entry).

Jump in gasoline prices? That is true. But according to the EPA, 78% of the price of gas is due to forces not controlled by the oil companies.

Record setting levels? Only in sheer dollar amount, not when considering profit margin. But ANY company - gee...how about Wal-Mart...that consistently increases sales will set new records from a dollar valuation perspective but not necessarily from a percentage POV.

"Brought to you by the folks who proclaim themselves the guardians of "moral values"."

I know what you're desperate to point out here, but factually, I've never heard Middle Eastern countries or OPEC declare themselves guardians of moral values.

Net profit margin is the only way to compare different companies and their performance. Regardless of dollar valuation of sales.

Nice conspiratorial paragraph.
Greg must have missed this representative piece from the Washington Post -- dated 16-Nov-2005:

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Of course, these weren't "lies." After all, they weren't under oath (because the GOP refused the request by the minority party to demand it). And of course, the story itself is just a liberal lie -- just like the Watergate revelations from the same source were "just lies" (when published).

Greg apparently joins the ranks of those who claim Cheney's secret meetings with petroleum executives didn't happen -- even though the GOP is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any independent inquiry into them.

Yes it does! Lighting products, air travel, electric generation, medical care, and communications. All businesses that GE is in, and all areas that affect the average american.
Ask an average worker how he or she pays for any of the above. Ask an average worker how much he or she pays for gas or heating oil. Sorry, Greg. That dog won't hunt.

Class envy
I see. Apparently the "moral values" embraced by conservatives such as Greg seem to skip over traditional Judeochristian prohibitions against "greed". Instead, any attempt to name it is greeted with a dismissive "class envy." Lying to Senate investigators is ok, so long as you're not under oath, because -- well, just because.

So I guess Greg's answer to my question ("is there ANY threshold that YOU feel would constitute "greed"?") is a resounding "No!".

At least we know where you're coming from, Greg.

Tom,

From what I can tell based on your posts, any profitable business is evil and must have their "profits" redistributed.

Back to the topic at hand - and away from the rhetoric.

GE, Pepsico, Coca-cola, Consolidated Theaters, Goodyear, Blockbuster, etc. ALL generate their profit margin from the discretionary income of Americans.

If one goes back to my comparative table in my original post, the only way to compare the relative profitability of companies across industries and across gross revenue volumes is via Net Profit Margin comparisons. Using that method, energy companies are no more profitable than companies in other industries. However, when one chooses to use Gross Dollar Revenues then ANY growing company should set new "profit" records every year. It's simply a function of math.

Do I like paying $2+ per gallon for gas? No. Do I understand that the majority of the price of gas is uncontrollable by the energy companies? Yes.
According to the US Dept of Energy the price of a gallon of gas is proportioned like this:

58% Crude Oil
20% Federal, State and Local Taxes
15% Refining
8% Distribution and Marketing

With 58% of the cost of a gallon of gas coming from crude oil, any change in that raw material cost will dramatically affect end user prices.

To answer your question. I can't say where I'd post a "This is greedy, this is not" signpost. I'd have to see the underlying costs associated with doing business.

It's too long for a post here, but the major problems I see with gasoline supply stem from:

1. Constrained supply
2. Constrained refining capacity
3. Too many boutique gasoline blends (5 different gasoline blends in 2004 - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05421high.pdf#search=%27gasoline%20blends%27
4. Futures market uncertainty

Correction to my last post. That should read "45 different gasoline blends..." not "5 different.."

Dang new fingers!

;-)

From what I can tell based on your posts, any profitable business is evil and must have their "profits" redistributed.

Any? Evil? "Must have their 'profits' redistributed"? I wrote that Exxon/Mobil is greedy. Not GE. Not Apple. None of "GE, Pepsico, Coca-cola, Consolidated Theaters, Goodyear, Blockbuster, etc."

I don't think I wrote any of that, Greg, and I don't appreciate the effort to put words in my mouth.

I did ask a question that I'd like to ask again: Is there ANY threshold that YOU feel would constitute "greed"? What's your "signpost", if you want to call it that?

If one goes back to my comparative table in my original post, the only way to compare the relative profitability of companies across industries and across gross revenue volumes is via Net Profit Margin comparisons.

No doubt. But I'm not asking that we "compare the relative profitability of companies...". There are many aspects to greed, and most of them are NOT captured by net profitability. For example, a nine year old child who sells lemonade at $1.00 -- and pays $0.05/glass for the same lemonade -- has astronomical net margin. That child is not, in my book, "greedy".

Do I like paying $2+ per gallon for gas? No. Do I understand that the majority of the price of gas is uncontrollable by the energy companies? Yes.

The costs you cite do not adequately reflect either the replacement cost nor the pollution cost. This is a blog about global warming. I know that this is troubling for you to hear, but there is substantial evidence that the greenhouse gases emitted by the US motor vehicle fleet is a significant contributor greenhouse gases.

The rest of the world has been paying far more than the US consumer for a very long time. Consider, for example, what might result if federal and local authorities raised the gas tax so that gas within the US was comparable to the world-wide price. Even using March, 2005 prices, that's a street price of about $5.50/gallon -- meaning additional tax revenue of about $2.00/gallon (give or take).

This might have several effects:

1. It encourages development of alternative fuels


2. It encourages development and use of transportation alternatives


3. It encourages development of higher efficiency vehicles


4. It discourages the explosion in "sprawl", and encourages development of more localized communities


5. It encourages local travel and discourages long-distance travel


6. It might fund public or private research into petroleum alternatives


7. It might fund the amelioration of some of the economic consequences of our petroleum withdrawal symptoms, especially among the least fortunate individuals and geographies.

and so on.

The sacrifice that virtually every citizen is ALREADY making cannot be avoided -- the world is exhausting its supply of petroleum, new petroleum is NOT being created, and we are only beginning to see the war, destruction, and bloodshed that our petroleum addiction is creating. In the context of this sacrifice that is ALREADY taking place, the obscene profiteering by individuals like Lee Raymond and companies like Exxon/Mobil is, in my opinion, immoral -- just as war-time profiteering during WWII was considered immoral. Not EVERY executive, not EVERY company. Executives like Lee Raymond and companies like Exxon/Mobil.

We have no choice about the sacrifice. We have a great deal of choice about how we handle those few miscreants who use this time to exploit and plunder the rest of us.

In reply to storm about the evaporation rate. That the evaporation rate is increased is surely right. In 1976 my hometown of Iraan, Tx (oil country) experienced a flood that wiped out a bridge of 40 years old. More floods have hit the USA. Davenport IA, three 100 yr. floods within 7 years in the 1990's. So, yes, what goes up does come. Global warming is boiling the oceans off, and it has to come down somwhere.
That said, remember that cooling has to occur to condense rain, and that water is a refrigerant fluid. Therefore it obeys the refrigeration laws, such as a gas refrigerator. Heat it up in one place, and it cools off another. But this is not well understood, I believe. And I have more data for another time on that.

Thank You, "Dallas" Dave