or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple abandons U.S. Chamber of Commerce over climate policy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple abandons U.S. Chamber of Commerce over climate policy - Page 3

post #81 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

Dave, paraphrasing your title "ignorance does not equal truth" is my rebuttal.

Spoken like somebody that has drunk the koolaid. If you want to live with your head in the sand that is fine but I'm going to suggest that you read a lot more and strive to educate yourself. Focus not on the stuff from the sector that believes in manmade global warming and is promotion. Rather focus on records, research and other information from science not allied with the global warming mafia. While you are at it refer back to the source documents that the global warming mafia uses to justify their position. See if that research and the follow up research, really says what is being publically claimed.

Much of what is offered up as research is out right fabrication to support an agenda. Further if the science being done was all that great public access would be mandatory. Yet we live in a world where something as simple as temperature data is keep secure from evaluation from outsiders. The act of scientific research requires that you open up your data an you conclusions to peer review, yet we have people in the business of global warming hiding from public discourse the very info these claims are based on.


Dave
post #82 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Much of the so called science has been fabricated with the very intent to frighten the uneducated and much of the female population.
Dave

Wow! That one sentence tells me everything I need to know about where your head is at, and it's not a good place!
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #83 of 150
For all of you global-warming denial ... people ... who love to throw around the word "facts" (as if you knew what that meant) and peddle your own home-brewed theories on why all the scientists "have it wrong":

Quote:
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.[22] Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls. [23][24][25]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[26] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[27] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ersy#Consensus

Quote:
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

You will find actual informative content in the links above.
post #84 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

I still love Apple despite this moronic move. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet.

Oh right, so it's ok to be the second biggest or third biggest or fourth biggest emitter on the planet...just not the first. Thanks for clarfying that.

How about working out CO2 emissions per person for each country? Might be a bit more accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


As it has been mentioned many times in this thread, all of Apple's stuff is made in China, the largest polluter on the freaking planet.

And designed in the second largest polluter on the planet. If they moved to, say, the lowest polluter on the planet, do you think it would make any difference? Not really, other than that place would be bumped higher up the list. At the end of the day, you have to produce your products somehow.
post #85 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC4Theo View Post

That's just the right thing to do. United States of Amnesia is so corrupt in every way just to make a buck. One day, all these millionaires and billionaires will perish with everyone else, and none is taking his/her money when they die.

I agree. Health care? I don't want to be healthy, I want to keep my money.
Environmental issues? I don't want any environment, I want to keep my money.

Bigger picture here people...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Okay, I'm going to violate what I said previously...

Let's put something into perspective here: First, man's contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by rotting vegitation and rotting corpses. That, is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by the oceans.

On top of that, CO2 is a marginal green house gas. The vast majority of the green house effect lies within water vapor. Combine that with how marginal, overall, the human contribution of CO2, and you have just about nothing. We are in no way shape or form causing ridiculous changes in the Earth's temperatures. As a matter of fact, its been reported that polar ice is actually thickening, not thinning.

The Earth has seen much warmer and much cooler periods, yet life thrived.

You can't trust your highly trained local Meteorologist to forecast the weather further out than one or two days, so why would you trust a bunch of politicians backed by a bunch of scientists looking to receive funding in an otherwise looked over area of science to predict our weather for the next 100 years?

Remember the Ozone Layer scare? Guess what? It turns out to be something that's a natural phenomenon... Now, we got stuck with R-45 instead of the much better R-12 refrigerant because people just insisted that we were killing the Earth, and supposedly had science to prove it.

To just blindly think that we need to do something about it is naive. Leave Mother Nature alone. Nature has a built-in self-repair mechanism, and it works much better than anything we've ever tried.

But vegetation gives something back to the Earth, and we just destroy everything. Everything natural has a purpose, whether it's as nuturients of some kind, or to regulate gases etc. Nature regulates itself, and doesn't take into account our effect.

Thickening ice? Oh really? What are your sources? Everything I've found says the opposite, including from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7461707.stm

Yes, but life and the planet wasn't affected as heavily by pollution and destruction so persistently over such a long period.

The weather doesn't equal climate. If you think that, then no wonder you believe all that other rubbish.

Right...how about you tell that to all the people in Australia and New Zealand who have skin cancer because of it. I'm sure that'll make them feel better. I suppose you want to bring CFCs back too.

Yes exactly...but nature is constantly having to battle harder and harder against us because so many people just don't care at all. And one day, it will fail. You really think we can leave mother nature alone? You really think we ARE leaving mother nature alone, and have been since the 1700s? The earth's population is growing. Things are getting worse. You honestly believe the elemental rule of physics, that an action causes a reaction, isn't true here, and will never be?
post #86 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

One hundred percent in agreement with Coffeetime. Much as I admire Steve Jobs, Apple, and Apple's products, I simply can't stomach Al Gore and his looney Democrat politics. The one move Steve has made that I heartily disapprove is putting Gore on the Board of Directors.

I agree, the man is a jerk, but he did invent the internet.
post #87 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

One hundred percent in agreement with Coffeetime. Much as I admire Steve Jobs, Apple, and Apple's products, I simply can't stomach Al Gore and his looney Democrat politics. The one move Steve has made that I heartily disapprove is putting Gore on the Board of Directors.

At least he's not a looney Republican.

Do some basic arithmetic.

What fraction of the world's oil has already been used? How fast is oil usage growing? What fraction of the world's oil is dependent on the continued stability of various ugly regimes? How far could the US have been on the path to independence from oil for 10% of the money spent on the Iraq war?

If you can answer these questions factually, you have one good reason to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, independent of the whole climate change story, that your kind of politics is unwilling to countenance as long as they continue to make money.

As for the climate change thing and the lies told about the science, I have a blog full of reactions to those. Happy reading. I'd be more than willing to take instruction from anyone who can prove that the mainstream is wrong. In the meantime, hats off to Apple for cutting its ties with a political embarrassment.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #88 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ilisation.html

In the period cited, less than a millenium ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now. What was that about manmade global warming again?

Ahh, that would be: The Great Global Warming Swindle (We're sorry, but this video may not be available)

The Swindle was a dreadful piece of work. After its first showing, the creator was forced to make edits for serious factual errors, and he still didn't get it right. The claim that the world as a whole was warmer 1,000 years ago is not supported by the evidence. There is plenty of evidence of regional warming, but not consistently across the globe, and not all at the same time.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #89 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by star-fish View Post


Thickening ice? Oh really? What are your sources? Everything I've found says the opposite, including from the BBC.

...You do realize that the BBC talk mules poo? Every single story from the BBC is armed to the teeth with spin.

Regarding the environment, ya know there isn't much evidence I'm afraid that links us to climate change. Most scientists realize this, but they go along with it because they feel morally obliged, or they are financially motivated.

If people wanted to tackle real environmental issues they should look no further than between their legs. Overpopulation is the root cause of human created environmental problems, we need to make it morally wrong to breed in excess of 3 children.
post #90 of 150
Too bad Apple has succumbed to the "Global Warming" hoax. It's just going to result in much higher prices and taxes for everyone with no return.
post #91 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Okay, I'm going to violate what I said previously...

Let's put something into perspective here: First, man's contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by rotting vegitation and rotting corpses. That, is dwarfed by the CO2 emitted by the oceans. There has not been one shred of single proof that absolutely points to any sort of cause and effect relationship of CO2 and the temperature of the Earth. However, there has been overwhelming evidence pointing to a cause and effect relationship of the role of the Sun, solar winds, the Earth's orbital cycles, etc. to the temperature of the Earth.

Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean that the scientific community is too. The total CO_2 in circulation is not the issue, it's the increase of CO_2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial era, the flow of CO_2 between air, sea and land was in balance. We are adding a small fraction over and above the amount the environment can absorb, so the atmospheric CO_2 level is increasing (nearly 40% since 1750 that's not a minor effect). The heat trapping effect of CO_2 has been known since the early 19th century, and measured reasonably accurately by Arrhenius in 1896.

Quote:
On top of that, CO2 is a marginal green house gas. The vast majority of the green house effect lies within water vapor.

True but irrelevant. The main greenhouse effect raises the Earth's average temperature enough that it isn't a ball of ice. We are concerned about an effect about 10% of that.

Quote:
Combine that with how marginal, overall, the human contribution of CO2, and you have just about nothing. We are in no way shape or form causing ridiculous changes in the Earth's temperatures. As a matter of fact, its been reported that polar ice is actually thickening, not thinning. We're predicted to be at the very beginning of a long cooling period, based on solar cycles and the cycles of the earth's wobble on its axis and such. These are far more of an indicator of what long term trend the Earth is heading in than some questionable hypothesis that a marginal green house gas is somehow catastrophically changing our Earth. The Earth's temps have changed in huge swings over the course of its history, and this is nothing new. So why all the panic?

Wrong. North polar sea ice has been steadily thinning. Parts of the Antarctic are thickening but this is a localized effect, more than offset my ice loss elsewhere. Why all the panic, you ask. Possibly the fact that every mass extinction event was associated with a major climate swing? Possibly the fact that we have billions of people who can only be fed by organized agriculture under current conditions? Possibly the fact that the vast majority of major centres of population are within a few metres of sea level?

Quote:
The Earth has seen much warmer and much cooler periods, yet life thrived. The polar bears were around in much warmer times and have survived, as have much of the animal kingdom we know today. On the contrary, not all of them survive drastic cooling periods quite as well. There is huge evidence that life actually flourished in warmer periods.

And most of it has since gone extinct.

Quote:
To make it point blank, in the scheme of Mother Nature, we human beings are very insignificant. Our contribution of anything to the atmosphere is in no way changing anything at all. You can't trust your highly trained local Meteorologist to forecast the weather further out than one or two days, so why would you trust a bunch of politicians backed by a bunch of scientists looking to receive funding in an otherwise looked over area of science to predict our weather for the next 100 years?

Forecasting the weather is a totally different problem (working out the exact state of the system at a specific time) than long-range climate prediction (predicting how the long-term average will change). Climate and weather are usually modelled using totally different software.

Quote:
Remember the Ozone Layer scare? Guess what? It turns out to be something that's a natural phenomenon... Now, we got stuck with R-45 instead of the much better R-12 refrigerant because people just insisted that we were killing the Earth, and supposedly had science to prove it.

You are a glutton for industry spin aimed at the ignorant, aren't you?

Quote:
To just blindly think that we need to do something about it is naive. Leave Mother Nature alone. Every attempt green organizations have in rectifying something in nature have been short sighted and had adverse effects. Just leave it alone. Nature has a built-in self-repair mechanism, and it works much better than anything we've ever tried.

Yeah, right. It's called evolution. Creatures that destroy their own environment go extinct.

Quote:
Ever since this "Global Warming" stuff started making a splash in the late 1980's and early 1990's, I've looked at the claims with open eyes and an open mind. At one time, I was on the whole bandwagon of being greener, and was almost a member of Greenpeace. But, when I looked at all the evidence spewed by both sides, and used a little common sense to decipher what seems to better explain things and what makes more sense, the climate change theorists began to look either pretty stupid or having a political agenda. This whole ordeal has made me rethink the entire green movement and has opened my eyes that most of it is not well thought out and a cover for a larger political agenda. Even Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has publicly stated that the green movement has been hijacked by extremist who's agenda has more to do with class warfare.

You mean to say you have failed to discern the political agenda of the other side? I for one would be only to pleased if all the science was wrong because I have direct experience of campaigning in other science vs. vested interests battles (tobacco regulation, HIV doesn't cause aids) and spreading this sort of disinformation about science is extremely easy. All you need to do is find people who are politically inclined not to believe the science, and they will believe anything the denial side says.

Unfortunately, nature is not gullible. If we continue to behave as if the world works the way we want it to, not the way it really is, we will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #92 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

SPPI, The Science & Public Policy Institute. It was started by Lord Christopher Monkton... he used to be the science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Check out their CO2 report for Aug.... it's a whopping 33 pages of REAL INFORMATION..... that you need to understand.
Z

You are quoting Monckton as an authority and accusing the rest of us of being uninformed? He doesn't even know if he's not a member of the House of Lords, a matter he is more qualified to pontificate on than climate science.

Do yourself a favour. Read your science in the scientific literature, not on looney toons blogs.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #93 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Regarding the environment, ya know there isn't much evidence I'm afraid that links us to climate change. Most scientists realize this, but they go along with it because they feel morally obliged, or they are financially motivated.

How many scientists do you know? The notion that scientists will keep quiet about something they know is fundamentally wrong, and do so by the thousands is completely crazy. In any case, hyping up the risks of climate change is not a good way to get more funding for climate research. The logical thing to do if we all accept the science is to invest heavily in renewable energy.

The real money story here is fossil fuel interests demanding ever more certainty in the science before we can act so they can stay in business for longer.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #94 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

The Swindle was a dreadful piece of work. After its first showing, the creator was forced to make edits for serious factual errors, and he still didn't get it right. The claim that the world as a whole was warmer 1,000 years ago is not supported by the evidence. There is plenty of evidence of regional warming, but not consistently across the globe, and not all at the same time.

What were these factual errors? if you are referring to ofcom, I believe there was no ruling by ofcom against the programs 'facts'.
Why did you just use "1,000 years ago" as an example? You do realize the world continuously fluctuates in temperature? And choosing a specific date is akin to measuring the height of a bouncing ball by a single snapshot of time.

Your not doing yourself any favors here.

Typical environmentalists tactics include :
selective statistics
pictures of cute bears on ice
delusions of moral superiority
graphs of earth temperature over selective time periods
pictures of jet 'vapor' trails passed off as smoke
hype, hype and more hype,
scare tactics ("we will go the same way as the dinosaurs" come on!)

... Really, if environmentalists wanted to make themselves sound more credible, they need to talk strait and not use dubious methods of spreading their message.

Ya know, I do not doubt that humans contribute to climate change, it's just that the amount which we contribute is FAR less than that of relevance, or that which is portrayed.
I'm all up for cleaner products, I just cant stand being lied to, in much the same way that I cant stand religion.

And lets not forget that the environment is BIG business, so next time someone says snootily "You are a glutton for industry spin aimed at the ignorant, aren't you?" ....who is the industry??? and who is the sucker??

Apple is part of the computer industry..if you had not noticed, and one of the most profitable. They are well aware that they can add to their halo of superiority by preaching the environmentalists mantra, which is what you see today. So by your own reasoning, if you are looking for the ignorant, you need only face the mirror.
post #95 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

For all of you global-warming denial ... people ... who love to throw around the word "facts" (as if you knew what that meant) and peddle your own home-brewed theories on why all the scientists "have it wrong":

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to point out that "facts", as you refer to them, are not available.

The surface history data, paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy, compiled by Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, was the source of authority for the IPCC's warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

From the article: Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

When pressed for the data by Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who requested the raw data from Jones, Jones responded:

"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."

In scientific research, if you can't guarantee the trail of the empirical evidence back to the original source, it's considered tainted and your conclusions are void. Since the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is the source of authority for all the data used (the exception is satellite data, which only goes back about 20 years) to determine historic global temperature baselines, that research is tainted.

itistoday, I agree with your assertion that people are throwing around the word "facts" as if they knew what they were talking about, yet no verifiable facts exist. Scientists may or may not have it wrong, it's impossible to tell if you don't have a verifiable trail of evidence and if you don't make the evidence available for peer review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WI5OWM=&w=MA==
post #96 of 150
Ive just registered to say that i completely agree with apples decision.

Through constant propaganda day in day out the governments/mainstream media thinks it can change the way you think for their gain, wether its the 'war on terror' or 'weapons of mass destruction'

'climate change' is just another profit/control exercise.

the main 2 party political system is just a sham, it gives you the impression that your vote can make a change. It makes no difference because there is only one agenda.
post #97 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

What were these factual errors? if you are referring to ofcom, I believe there was no ruling by ofcom against the programs 'facts'.

This is an old story. If you don't know it, start here and do a broader search. The thing was junk.

Quote:
Why did you just use "1,000 years ago" as an example? You do realize the world continuously fluctuates in temperature? And choosing a specific date is akin to measuring the height of a bouncing ball by a single snapshot of time.

Because that's the claim I was responding to. Someone says something idiotic and I point that out. What do you expect? I write a paper in Nature to respond to an obvious error?

Quote:
Your not doing yourself any favors here.

Typical environmentalists tactics include :
selective statistics
pictures of cute bears on ice
delusions of moral superiority
graphs of earth temperature over selective time periods
pictures of jet 'vapor' trails passed off as smoke
hype, hype and more hype,
scare tactics ("we will go the same way as the dinosaurs" come on!)

Right, well did I do all of the above? Did I do any of the above other than the dinosaur alusion, which is not scientifically invalid.

Quote:
... Really, if environmentalists wanted to make themselves sound more credible, they need to talk strait and not use dubious methods of spreading their message.

Yeah, well try reading the ranting of the likes of Monckton for a while. It becomes hard to maintain your patience especially when people accuse you of being irrational and ignoring the facts, when they are the ones who are inventing data, ignoring corrections to errors in old published work, etc. I do not rely on politicised spin to understand the science. I go to original sources.
Quote:
Ya know, I do not doubt that humans contribute to climate change, it's just that the amount which we contribute is FAR less than that of relevance, or that which is portrayed.
I'm all up for cleaner products, I just cant stand being lied to, in much the same way that I cant stand religion.

Absolutely. I'm with you there. I just find it strange that anyone who hates being lied to would take the word of industry shills over scientists.
Quote:
And lets not forget that the environment is BIG business, so next time someone says snootily "You are a glutton for industry spin aimed at the ignorant, aren't you?" ....who is the industry??? and who is the sucker??

The industry is the fossil fuel business. They have adopted many of the same tactics used by tobacco to confuse the nonscientist public.
Quote:
Apple is part of the computer industry..if you had not noticed, and one of the most profitable. They are well aware that they can add to their halo of superiority by preaching the environmentalists mantra, which is what you see today. So by your own reasoning, if you are looking for the ignorant, you need only face the mirror.

Why don't you read a few articles on my blog before claiming I'm ignorant. It would be fantastic if you were right because my experience with taking on tobacco is that when industry takes on science, science loses at first because spin overcomes the average non-scientist's ability to reason, but science wins in the end because (to paraphrase Richard Feynman) the universe doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #98 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post

The Goracle (undoubtedly while private-jetting back to his 10,000 sq ft mansion from some GW conference overseas) probably was threatening to resign from Apple's board, and they couldn't have, you know, the father of the internet and all, do that. Just like our so-called "health care crisis," so many people are simply sheep willing to be led to and fro by the con man of the hour.

I don't follow a con, I follow scientific principles! which con do you follow? The Bushicle? the Beckinstien?

KRR
post #99 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

I go to original sources.

As the link in my post points out, that's impossible. There is no direct connection to "original sources". The line of evidence is broken.
post #100 of 150
post #101 of 150
I got stuff to do, so i have to be brief!..
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

This is an old story. If you don't know it, start here and do a broader search. The thing was junk.

Ofcoms result was that it was factually acceptable. They did however give the program makers a telling off for not explaining to one of the participants the type of program he was getting involved in.
The mere fact that they got this 'telling off' meant that the mentalists could claim a victory over it's scientific content.. however further reading proves that not to be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

I just find it strange that anyone who hates being lied to would take the word of industry shills over scientists.

No, my view lies in the middle somewhere, which is generally where reality lies when looking at arguments objectively with reasoned spectacles.
Both sides are full of crap, but the mentalists would win the bullshitting competition if there was ever such a thing.

With the tobacco debate the propaganda pendulum was swung towards the 'industry' I'l grant you that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

They have adopted many of the same tactics used by tobacco to confuse the nonscientist public.
.... my experience with taking on tobacco is that when industry takes on science, science loses at first because spin overcomes the average non-scientist's ability to reason

See here you are using psychological projection, you are projecting the weaknesses of your own argument onto the 'industry'.
post #102 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

I've never understood why people opposed to environmental protection policies regard them as some kind of left-wing conspiracy, so maybe you can explain this to me: who exactly would profit from inventing a threat from global warming?

GE.

GE is one of many companies benfiting from the 'green movement' spurred by Gore and the scientifically flawed global warming theory. GE makes wind turbins, other companies make and install solar arrays.

The good news for our economy is that 'going green' is producing jobs.

Going 'green' is a great idea and one we should all support. But, doing so under the false pretences that man is somehow able to cause global warming is dishonest. Factually, the earth has been cooling since the mid 1990's. Most climatologists suspect we are actually enterning a lengthy cooling phase in the earth's life cycle.
post #103 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

You wanna fight, punk? Anyone want to know what a conservative right-winger is? It's a stereotype, that's what it is, and the typical thing this stereotype does is spout the nonsense they've heard from Fox News at people, and then when someone with half a clue gets wind of it and calls them a fool (what else are they to call them?), they get all red-faced and whip out their shotgun. That's how they debate, that's how they prove their point. With a fist or a gun.

No, I won't say it to your face because if you happen to fit that stereotype my health insurance might not cover the damage that could result.

I'm terribly sorry sir (or madam) if I've offended you, but you offended me when you decided to forsake reality and spew vulgarities, hatred, and when you tell Apple to "grow up" because they're trying to protect the environment (you know, that place you unfortunately inhabit). When you do that I will call you a misinformed fool. Deal with it.



I readily admit that I did not make an attempt to argue with you, because I've argued with people who sound like you before. It's like arguing with the evangelical christians that preach at my school's campus, trying to convince passersby that God hates "gays, muslims, jews" and that we should all start working on worshipping Jesus and accepting him as our "personal lord and savior". You cannot argue with people like this, believe me, I've tried and have given up. They don't understand what logic or evidence means.

So no, sorry, I'm not going to indulge you and waste my time explaining to you why your statement "Socialist climate change theories remain highly controversial and much debated" is highly idiotic. You wouldn't listen anyway, or perhaps you'd decide that it was no longer "socialist" climate change theories but "fascist" climate change theories that are "highly controversial and much debated". Or are they theories supported by communists? Or Nazis? You never know these days with the right-wing nutjobs...

On the other hand, if I've misunderstood your statement, or you meant to say something else, please by all means, do elaborate. Perhaps you could start by explaining how these theories are "socialist" in nature, and then move on to explain how they are controversial. Keep in mind that I know they are controversial among people who don't specialize in the subject area. The issue of Santa Claus will always be controversial amongst 4 year olds. In other words, please demonstrate how they're controversial among those who do specialize in it.

I meant to say exactly what I said. People are finally realizing that the progenitors of the global warming facade have generally been socialists whose "solutions", "coincidentally", happen to have far reaching socialist implications. Obviously you are one of them. My freedom is not yours to take, though, as I said earlier, I dare you to stand in front of me and try.

I must say, clever of your sort to use the weather as a vehicle for global socialism. After all, everyone loves to talk about the weather, yes?

As for the fact climate change remains much debated and highly controversial, I refer you to this thread, most of which you apparently have skipped over.

If you want to find a "nut job", as you put it, find the person you have been running away from the majority of your life -- the person you see whenever you muster up the small amount of courage necessary to look in the mirror.
post #104 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If you are going to digress I have to comment. The 'sheep' are those in need of such things a decent health care system (i.e. not a money making system for the insurance companies) that support the status quo because Fox News tells them to.

Sorry but I'm not inclined to believe anyone in Washington telling me that the bill must absolutely be passed, & in the same breath saying they have not read the bill nor do they intend to.

We need healthcare REFORM, not an entirely new health care system. I don't really care who presents the best idea, so long as they read it before telling me I need it & don't call me a criminal for suspicious of something that no one has ever convinced me is good for our country.

To quote Phillmore from Cars, "It's a government conspiracy man! They're feeding us a pack of lies man."
post #105 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

What's even sadder however is the fact that people see the Global Warming issue as a Democrat issue. Republicans think it's a waste of money. It's rather refreshing when a company actually self regulates for a lofty goal. There is a reason to be proud of that.

You'd have to live under a rock to believe that Global Warming isn't happening. I find the whole argument that we can't change it silly. If we can't do anything, then by all means lets just continue to take a dump in our back yards and let the next generation deal with it. You can only fail if you try, seems to be a popular and expedient political out. Insanity. I happen to believe there is very much that we can do once we as a race put our minds to it.

Everyone should be more concerned about your family and friends 50 years from now rather than which political party is in power right now. Sometimes there actually is a greater good. It's a shame people can't see it or serve it without the almighty dollar raising it's ugly head. The two don't have to be counter productive.

Thank you. As a pretty damn conservative religious person, I am sick and tired of idiot religious people clinging to this view that environmental concern is a democrat issue. I cannot tell you how many times i have heard some bull shizz religious argument against protecting the environment. Its silly, stupid, selfish, and is not rooted in any religious doctrine.
post #106 of 150
I read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear' and followed up by checking the factual sources in his footnotes.

I no longer believe that human-produced CO2 is a cause of global warming.

I am now aware that 'global warming' is really just a theory.

I can hardly believe that we are going to blow billions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions because of this unproven theory, when we could better use that money to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and feed starving people around the globe.

I wish Apple were not on the media bandwagon on this issue.
post #107 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linj View Post

I meant to say exactly what I said. People are finally realizing that the progenitors of the global warming facade have generally been socialists whose "solutions", "coincidentally", happen to have far reaching socialist implications. Obviously you are one of them. My freedom is not yours to take, though, as I said earlier, I dare you to stand in front of me and try.

I must say, clever of your sort to use the weather as a vehicle for global socialism. After all, everyone loves to talk about the weather, yes?

This is the sort of insane crap I'm talking about.

Read your own post, I asked you to procure evidence as to what socialism has to do with the global climate change theories, and this is your response. Where is the evidence? You assert the proponents are socialists, but *WHERE* I ask are you getting this from? Was there some poll you can refer to? Or did Fox News find some poor socialist climatologist and now everyone's suddenly a socialist bent on stealing your freedoms and instituting global socialism? And did the fact that a scientific theory cannot have a political leaning ever cross your mind?

And yes, "obviously" I am one of "them."

Do you hear how utterly insane you sound? Can you see now why I did not want to argue with you?

Quote:
As for the fact climate change remains much debated and highly controversial, I refer you to this thread, most of which you apparently have skipped over.

That is tantamount to saying it's controversial "because I say it is." After all, you are one of the lay people claiming controversy in this thread. Hardly scientific, no? As I said originally:

The issue of Santa Claus will always be controversial amongst 4 year olds. In other words, please demonstrate how they're controversial among those who do specialize in it.

You're welcome to try again, but you may wish to take a look at this post first.

Quote:
If you want to find a "nut job", as you put it, find the person you have been running away from the majority of your life -- the person you see whenever you muster up the small amount of courage necessary to look in the mirror.

Says the person spouting incoherent conspiracy theories of socialist climatologists run amok bent on ruling the world.
post #108 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

So there is no Global Warming eh? lol It's just a cycle ... eh? Rush told you that i assume? ROFL

Don't you find it amazing how many loons have come out of the wordwork sense the neocons lost the White House?

Suddenly the Dems have all these horrific ideas that need to be crushed without thought.

Sort of like how all policy was made from 2000 to 2008. But hey, at least the guy was aware of "how hard it is to put food on your family". ROFLMOA
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #109 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

This is the sort of insane crap I'm talking about.
...

Do you hear how utterly insane you sound? Can you see now why I did not want to argue with you?



....

... and utterly irresponsible to mankind in the selfish quest to protect one's willful ignorance, indolence, and arrogance.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #110 of 150
Folks, scientific data is always meant to be looked at with skepticism until it can be proven without a doubt. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for global warming. Any skepticism at all is met with ferocious name calling and black listing. The jury is still out on this, and I, personally, don't think global warming theory holds a grain of salt. Until it is proven that man-made global warming exists, we should not jump the gun to rectify something that we don't even know if we can. The Earth has, in fact, warmed since the early 1970's and has reportedly ceased to do so since 1998. That is a fact. However, what is not a fact is that man's introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has anything to do with it. Until it's proven, beyond a doubt, and with overwhelming consensus, we should remain skeptical about such theories.
post #111 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to point out that "facts", as you refer to them, are not available.

The surface history data, paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy, compiled by Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, was the source of authority for the IPCC's warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

From the article: Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

When pressed for the data by Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who requested the raw data from Jones, Jones responded:

"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."

In scientific research, if you can't guarantee the trail of the empirical evidence back to the original source, it's considered tainted and your conclusions are void. Since the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is the source of authority for all the data used (the exception is satellite data, which only goes back about 20 years) to determine historic global temperature baselines, that research is tainted.

itistoday, I agree with your assertion that people are throwing around the word "facts" as if they knew what they were talking about, yet no verifiable facts exist. Scientists may or may not have it wrong, it's impossible to tell if you don't have a verifiable trail of evidence and if you don't make the evidence available for peer review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WI5OWM=&w=MA==

Taskiss, I readily agree with you that from that article it sounds like in the case of Phil Jones he was being both a douche-bag and not helping the scientific community.

However, there are several points I would make:

- The article is completely one-sided, written by one person from their point of view. No opportunity to hear the story from the other side is given. Now that's rather hypocritical of the authors, no? Not exactly unbiased journalism.

- Jones' data is just one out of many bits of data used by the IPCC and other climatologists in determining the consensus view. There are many sets of data, from many different areas, like ocean temperatures, ice core samples, satellite data, tree rings, etc. etc. Here's a bunch of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...Variations.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...Comparison.png

- The fact that wikipedia's editors were actually able to compile a list of dissenting scientists from around the world should give you an idea of how few of them there are.

Lastly I will state that I am not here to debate whether global warming is man-made, real or not, with you or anyone else on this forum, so don't expect me to. I simply don't have the required time or credentials. I am not an expert in the field. I will only point to the conclusions of those who specialize in this subject matter.

Nor do I think that any of you should in good conscience allow yourselves to indulge in debating unsubstantiated claims and theories, unless you actually know what the f*** you're talking about. By that, in a crude way, I mean that you actually work in the field of climatology, studying the issue, and if you do, I would ask WTF are you doing on AppleInsider's forums and why are you debating this with idiots who know only what Fox News tells them.
post #112 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood52 View Post

I read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear' and followed up by checking the factual sources in his footnotes.

I no longer believe that human-produced CO2 is a cause of global warming.

I am now aware that 'global warming' is really just a theory.

I can hardly believe that we are going to blow billions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions because of this unproven theory, when we could better use that money to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and feed starving people around the globe.

I wish Apple were not on the media bandwagon on this issue.

And while he did throw in dozens of sources to point to the fallacy in many arguments he went well out of his way to say the most important thing is to study the situation rather than to act on minor variations and that people need to realize the environment (read: the world) is way, way more complex than just the creation of greenhouse gases and he gives plenty of evidence to support that (which I'm sure you're aware of since you read the book).

It's a very good book and very entertaining - the facts are footnoted so it's a little hard to say they are false but at the same time you need to realize he just wants and open and honest debate about it and not only that but the ramifications of such actions.

Responding to some other posts - this isn't anything like tobacco. Show me someone who has died because they stopped smoking. There are, literally, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people dead in Africa because we decided to ban DDT and now years after the fact we don't have the slightest shred of evidence that doing so helped anything. There are real human costs to this and that needs to be discussed and weighed. In the end malaria is now a huge problem in Africa because of this and there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to show banning DDT did anything - that should throw up a lot of red flags to people...

For those you haven't read the book it's a very good read...

EDIT: Also, apparently, the problem Apple had with the chamber was this "The chamber in August filed paperwork asking U.S. EPA to hold a public debate on climate change science, as the agency prepared to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act." Umm, so Apple bailed because the Dept wanted a public debate on it? Really?? Also, Apple isn't anywhere close to the first company to abandon ship so saying they are some kind of trailblazer is disingenuous at best. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10...cha-24103.html
post #113 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

... By that, in a crude way, I mean that you actually work in the field of climatology, studying the issue, and if you do, I would ask WTF are you doing on AppleInsider's forums and why are you debating this with idiots who know only what Fox News tells them.

Ya do know that there are just as many people that say and do whatever CNN tells them right? I'm just saying - being a sheep (for lack of a better phrase) to a media outlet has never been solely an issue of party and more an issue of willingness to not think critically. Really the best way is, as they say, know your enemy. To consider yourself knowledgeable you should read both Fox News and CNN - chances are reality is somewhere in between...
post #114 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

...

Nor do I think that any of you should in good conscious allow yourselves to indulge in debating unsubstantiated claims and theories, unless you actually know what the f*** you're talking about. By that, in a crude way, I mean that you actually work in the field of climatology, studying the issue, and if you do, I would ask WTF are you doing on AppleInsider's forums and why are you debating this with idiots who know only what Fox News tells them.

My dog made me do it.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #115 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Ya do know that there are just as many people that say and do whatever CNN tells them right? I'm just saying - being a sheep (for lack of a better phrase) to a media outlet has never been solely an issue of party and more an issue of willingness to not think critically. Really the best way is, as they say, know your enemy. To consider yourself knowledgeable you should read both Fox News and CNN - chances are reality is somewhere in between...

This is a very good point you bring up, CNN can sometimes be just as bad as Fox News, and both tend to be poor sources of information on just about any topic.

The truth tends to be neither with CNN, nor Fox News, nor in between, rather it's often completely off their radar. I just pick on Fox News because it spreads the worst nonsense under the pretense of being a "news network" and all the loonies watch it.
post #116 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

This is a very good point you bring up, CNN can sometimes be just as bad as Fox News, and both tend to be poor sources of information on just about any topic.

The truth tends to be neither with CNN, nor Fox News, nor in between, rather it's often completely off their radar. I just pick on Fox News because it spreads the worst nonsense under the pretense of being a "news network" and all the loonies watch it.

It might also depend on where you live and what the current political environment is. I.E. From 2000 - 2004 or so CNN was home to all the loonies because the right wing was in control of DC and you had all sorts of crazy people out there going against the status quo. Now the shoe is on the other foot so people like to point to Fox News as being home to the loonies.

What I find most interesting is that Fox News stands alone as the place were conservative nut jobs go to get their news but the liberal nut jobs seem to have many sources to get their information - I'm really not sure why that is to be honest. I just know that pre-BO CNN had at least one article a day about someone dying in Iraq/Afghanistan and post-BO you might find one a week even tho the death rate is just as bad. The inverse can be said about Fox News.
post #117 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itistoday View Post

I am not here to debate whether global warming is man-made, real or not, with you or anyone else on this forum, so don't expect me to.

I'm not debating it either. I'm pointing out that the "facts" are not necessarily facts. I'm not saying thay are wrong, I'm saying it can't be verified.

The CRU data is more than you have stated - it's data sets are "the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit


That's a HUGE responsibility, and they refuse to allow access for peer review. Read their own site, you think the article was one sided, they say the same thing on their site about their data availability:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Quote:
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Without the source data, their conclusions can't be verified. There is no proof, yet policy is being made. This is the work... the data that started the whole "global warming" controversy, and they admit that others can't reproduce it to verify their conclusions.

That's not how science works.
post #118 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I'm not debating it either. I'm pointing out that the "facts" are not necessarily facts. I'm not saying thay are wrong, I'm saying it can't be verified.

The CRU data is more than you have stated - it's data sets are "the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit


That's a HUGE responsibility, and they refuse to allow access for peer review. Read their own site, you think the article was one sided, they say the same thing on their site about their data availability:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/


Without the source data, their conclusions can't be verified. There is no proof, yet policy is being made. This is the work... the data that started the whole "global warming" controversy, and they admit that others can't reproduce it to verify their conclusions.

That's not how science works.

Well, there's also the scientifically proven fact of the urban heating effect which kind of throws a huge loop into the ability to use temp readings from cities as they've become more and more surrounded by heat trapping materials like asphault, concrete and bricks. This is a pretty significant impact on temp readings yet the only thing you hear about is 1) using this to say all the results are crap or 2) completely ignoring it. It needs to be taken into account either way - it doesn't mean all the data is crap but it's still something extremely import to consider.

EDIT: I too have wondered what ever happened to the 7 step scientific method I learned in junior high... http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentor...c_method.shtml
post #119 of 150
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

Just goes to show that some brave scientists still believe in scientific methodology and are willing to risk being outcasts rather than follow the popular belief that human-produced CO2 has already been found guilty of causing global warning.
post #120 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to point out that "facts", as you refer to them, are not available.

[ ... Long rant about surface history data deleted ... ]

It is simply a lie to claim that the entire theory of anthropogenic temperature increase rests on one data set. But let's look at the detail of this.

I started working in bioinformatics just over a year ago and guess what? Despite numerous official repositories, it's often hard to track down data especially long after the event. People run out of disk space, change jobs, archive the wrong data, forget to document it ...

The real checking in science comes from people repeating the experiment on independently derived data; that has happened numerous times for climate change. You can download the raw data NASA uses to compute their temperatures (they do adjustments like reducing the influence of urban areas and weather stations that are varying much faster than their neighbours; if you distrust this you can do your own analysis). There's also the UK Hadley data set, and the University Huntsville Alabama satellite data set (with latest corrections; another denialist trick is to quote numbers that have since been corrected). They all disagree slightly on the detail as they should if the measurements are from different sources, but the trends agree.

In a field where thousands of papers are published, one or two examples where data has not been curated adequately or someone disagrees with a statistical technique does not overthrow the theory. All it shows is that it's a good thing that many people are checking on this stuff by working independently. If you approach any other area of science the same way, you will find exactly the same "flaws" and exactly the same general methodology for correcting them. The only difference is that there isn't a threat to lifestyles and profits in discovering whether string theory is for real.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple abandons U.S. Chamber of Commerce over climate policy