or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list - Page 3

post #81 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I thought you were going to post that video of the Middle Ages inventor again. lol.gif

Is it the Mitchell & Webb video?


Edited by SolipsismX - 7/7/12 at 12:08pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #82 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611 View Post

 

When I read your post, I thought you were being sarcastic. But then later, I saw more of your posts. I then realised you meant what you said. I am almost lost for words. How can someone not be concerned for the planet? There are over 7 billion people living on it, and it is people that are causing damage to the environmental, and in so many ways? Computer equipment waste is a huge problem, and for some people, they may only use their computer for about 4 years, and then want or need to buy a new one, to keep up with technological advances, or because of faults that develop with it, or whatever. And if it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, the environment would be in a much worse condition. I respected Apple for their concerns and making their products environmentally friendly. So, I am dismayed and disappointed Apple is taking this action.

 

If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns. 

 

And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from. 

 

If your main purchase criteria is based on environmental standards, then there's no reason for you to own Apple gear anyway. This is nothing new. Even with Apple's best efforts to be green in the past, others have far surpassed them. You might as well get gear from one of Apple's competitors. And if you're really concerned about owning the best tech in terms of User Experience, then this decision by Apple would not deter you anyway. In which case you really have no complaints. 

 

Your post is full of crocodile tears, to be honest. 

post #83 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

 

LOL. Is that Ellen Feiss? And would she even know what the oscilloscope on the wall behind her was for?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #84 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

If you're concerned for the planet, consumer electronics should be the LEAST of your concerns. 

 

I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.

post #85 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142336"]I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.

They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #86 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


They're environmentalists, not Amish. And you never see Amish planting trees.

I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?

post #87 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142342"]I don't know too much about the Amish, besides that they drive horse and buggys and that they have funny haircuts, but why wouldn't they plant trees? Is that against their religion or something?

Oh, no, I can't imagine that it is, I'm just illustrating differences. Environmentalists go on about saving the environment and planting forests to offset whatever, but then they go back and live in air-conditioned/heated houses and use plastics and support industrialized economies, whereas the Amish don't bother offsetting the wood they use or take unnecessary precaution to keep the manmade products they use out of the environment, and yet they just have simple houses without modern convenience, use few appliances, and still support industrialized economies.

I've just never seen an Amishman go out of his way to plant a tree, unless he's doing it for beautification on his non-farmland.

They still don't use mirrors, though.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #88 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

 

 

And just to be clear, it's NOT about your concern for "the planet." It's about your concern for YOUR OWN health and that of your children and their children. The planet will go on whether there a mountains of plastic or whether it's a frozen waste. The planet was no less a planet before vegetation and life. The planet plus plastic minus beluga whales is no more nor any less a planet. The planet doesn't care, so long as it doesn't bloody explode. The "environment" has value irrespective of whether it can support human or animal life. Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from. 

 

 Since when were planets sentient?

post #89 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Is the Mitchell & Webb video?

 

The second one is very good, thanks!

post #90 of 197
Environmentalists in general, and Greenpeace in particular, pattern their activism on modern political parties' reality distortion fields. They spin, cherry-pick, lie, distort, and capitalize on it all to feed the insatiable desire of their growth hormone's agenda. The 'environment debate' stands as a variation on the theme of 'making a proprietary case' out of 'molded', 'plastic'... differentiations. Pun intended.

One lesson ought to be learnt from Apple's system-wide creativity. They will, through organic consistency, expand and 'fine-grain' their original thought process onto life-after-death ...of their 'end' products. Who can better recycle past innovations into more salient ones than a through-the-core, recidivist innovator himself? 

Apple's genius stands on its own, very lonesome indeed, as a self-replicating 'art-and-science' tautology. Very salmon-like; spawning grounds re-cycled into killing fields ...into spawning grounds ...into killing fields...Very Apple-like, 'bear market' notwithstanding...
post #91 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They still don't use mirrors, though.

 

I didn't know that. Maybe that explains all of the funny looking haircuts.

post #92 of 197

  Other than not wanting the end user or 3rd parties to be able to replace or upgrade components, what alternative reason would there be for the use of proprietary screws and the soldering of the ram?

post #93 of 197

It may be the case that CEO Tim Cook is not as interested in appeasing environmentalists as CEO Steve Jobs was.  It may also be the case that a future announcement will negate EPEAT certification.  If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness.  Perhaps it would be prudent to email Tim and ask him to clarify Apple's position on this matter.  This matter was likely extensively thought out and discussed within the upper levels of Apple.  There's likely an explanation that prompted the removal of Apple products currently meeting the EPEAT standards.  If Tim chooses not to clarify Apple's position on this issue with end users, it might be wise to find some shareholders who own significant stocks who can bring this issue up for discussion at the next shareholders meeting.  Apple may not always answer to end users, but they must answer to significant shareholders.

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #94 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post
 If education and government requires this certification for purchase of computers through official channels, it stands to reason that Apple would likely not want to lose education and government purchases for a minimal gain in thinness. 

 

Education is buying up iPads. iPads are immune from EPEAT.

post #95 of 197

deleted


Edited by kellya74u - 7/24/13 at 9:42am
post #96 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/40#post_2142327"]
Also, global warming is baloney for the most part .....

Really? Which 'part,' specifically?

If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.
post #97 of 197

That's the last time I buy an Apple product, then!

 

... oh, wait. No it isn't. Like 99.9% of consumers, this will have no effect on my purchasing decisions. The sleeker hardware which it makes possible might, though...

post #98 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

My guess is that Apple considers the EPEAT criteria to be woefully out of date and thus, no longer worth supporting in 2012. There are possibly other behind-the-scenes political motivations behind the status change.

 

It is unlikely that Apple would ever come out directly against EPEAT, which is explains their thinly veiled language.

 

Apple has disassociated itself from other groups that it no longer felt worth supporting. Apple Inc. pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in 2009 over discord with the group's emissions policy. Amusingly, Apple remains a major sponsor of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.

I think you're too quick to apologize for Apple. I usually am, too, but in this case I don't see it. If everything's glued together and it's impossible to get the battery out to recycle it (and recycle the aluminum case also), then it's a failure by Apple in environmental responsibility. That's pretty basic - unless it can be recycled easily, it's a failure, and Apple should be embarassed (and criticized). I don't give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one - they should come out and make a statement.

post #99 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

They should mind their own business. They have no business dictating their extremist religious beliefs unto others. If somebody wants to be all green and go live in a tree for the rest of their lives and never use toilet paper ever again, then good for them, as long as they keep their distance from me. But these loons have no right to impose their beliefs unto others. 

You should take your own advice - you're pretty belligerant, and by lumping all the "environmental groups" together, it shows you don't care about the reality. 90% of environmental groups go about their business quietly, improving things a little at a time, so you don't hear about them unless you actually care to find out. Yes, Greenpeace can go crawl into a hole and that would be fine with me, but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned, who got asbestos out of building materials, and on and on (PCBs, phthaltes, etc). If that's "dictating their beliefs to others", we need more of that. The alternative is the chemical companies imposing THEIR beliefs, which are that they should be able to use any chemicals for any purpose at any time.

post #100 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Really? Which 'part,' specifically?
If it's science-based environmentalism you do not have a problem with, then this is a terribly poor example to pick. You're certainly entitled to an opinion -- it's a free country, and there's no law against ignorance -- but to argue that it's **unscientific** is quite silly.

 

There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

 

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.

post #101 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

but I'm grateful for the hard working environmentalists who got DDT banned

 

I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.

post #102 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda...

Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #103 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

 

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.

 I believe that the term "global warming" was dropped because it caused confusion. The term did not imply that everywhere would be idyllic and cosy. It referred to aggregate temperatures and failed to highlight the cooling/flooding/extreme conditions elsewhere, hence the adoption of "climate change"

 

Yes there are companies that jump on any bandwagon that morphs into a gravy train, it does not mean that the concept is flawed though.

 

BTW We all cherry pick data to "prove" our point.  

post #104 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!

I agree with you. I do not have any objections to real, pure science of course. 

post #105 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.

 In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.

 

I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.

 

Kudos for lasting so long.

post #106 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 

BTW We all cherry pick data to "prove" our point.  

We might, but a true scientist should not.

post #107 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.

 

I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.

 

Kudos for lasting so long.

 

You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.

post #108 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
.
there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.

Yes there is an argument about the cause.

Climitologist argue the rate of co2 due to industrialisation etc will push the climate over the top of past warm cool cycles and head into a permanet heat cycle

Others say prove it or so what.

Consequences of permanent warm cycle may affect areas of food production(have you seen the temps in the Midwest) and large coastal swaths( think southern florida, etc). Or worse.

some say prove it, so what, better than paying a carbon tax

In the end what does the risk of perminet warm cycle mean? Well, just as some question the climatologist models, the neysayers don't know the actual effects either.

In the aerospace world we use a risk analysis calculation- probability and consequences. what if there was 1 in1000, 1in 1000000 chance that to continue dumping co2 leads to out right extinction because we become like Venus. At what point in this calculation of odds is action required?

Take 7 billion people all soon to be dumping co2, like the industrialized world.... Is there a point where you say enough?

On the flip side, if efforts are taken to reduce co2(and no that does not mean live in hole or other straw man arguments)... These unknowns may be avoided or greatly reduced.

An interesting ironic aside, pollution restrictions may make things worse. Pollution particulates(think volcanoe ash) reflect sunlight! Can't win. I'm with solip... Essentially in the end there are too many people.

Back to topic... It would be nice if apple would explain how they or others should recycle these products.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #109 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from. 

A true environmentalist should not procreate and also consider committing suicide to hasten the demise of the human race since humans are the ones destroying the environment.

I think the issue of the battery being glued down does not prevent the aluminum from being recycled it just presents an obstacle to determining the weight of the metal to pay the private junk recycler. If Apple created their own recycling program they could work out the details of disassembling the device and separating the materials.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #110 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.
 

Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.

post #111 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by h4z3 View Post

People saying that Apple is giving up being "green" are idiots.

 

Apple pulling out of the EPEAT doesnt mean their products are less recyclable since they have a free recycling program, you just have to take ur old equipment to an apple store and they will do it for free, thats more than most other electronic companies.

 

My guess is, they are pulling out simply because EPEAT is outdated and doesnt mix well with their prospects of the future, some may say that the ability to dissasemble one product to change one faulty component is equal to increase reusability, but that is not always true for all consumers, and more so when Apple offers these changes for free (when it's a known issue) or under guarantee.

 

If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.

 

You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.

 

By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.

post #112 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.

 

That's why it's more accurate to call it climate change. It alters the climate patterns so not all areas will warm, just the average.

 

If you are in Sydney, forget temperature. Think sea level. That's rising every year, and the rise is accelerating. Not much noise in that signal. It just keeps rising...

post #113 of 197

I agree. Apple's integrated design doesn't satisfy the standard. I disagree though that gluing the battery to the case would make the case less environmentally friendly. It will still come out. Apple also sponsors several electronic recycling events around the Country every year. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Interesting. The cynic in me is wondering if Apple is pushing toward the more integrated design across all their Macs over the next year or so which would mean they will systematically starting rating lower (or not at all) on EPEAT which would make this move a pre-empetive strategy.
Note that on at least one of their pages they are already missing images related to EPEAT. That makes me wonder if it's a very abrupt change,
359
PS: If DaHarder agrees with my comment I'll know I'm on the wrong track. 😷
post #114 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.

 

They would have died anyway. The problem with DDT was that mosquitoes were building resistance to it (yes, natural selection works), so they had to keep raising the quantity used. Meanwhile, the stuff doesn't biodegrade and it was accumulating in higher animals at increasing rates. It was lose-lose regardless, so it was banned.

post #115 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

 

If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.

 

You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.

 

By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.

 

 

I doubt Apple dumps the product. Apple recently paid for a huge event in Ann Arbor where people could drop off any electronic item. Twenty semi trucks worth were collected. Further, Apple paid for a environmental responsible company to salvage the materials that could be used and responsibly dispose of the rest. 

post #116 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

 

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.

 

 

The problem is people like you don't back up your view with anything tangible all while criticizing views held by others that at least does have some scientific basis. Science always involves taking data to formulate working theories. Further, science doesn't always understand how something works. For instance, radio waves are widely used in technology, however, why they do what they do is still not fully understood. Yet, the scientists utilize the information they have and work off their theories. Moreover, you do not always have time to fully understand something before action is needed. 

 

As far as politicians go, global warming was first put forth by scientists not politicians. Speaking of politicians, Republicans in Texas recently suggested kids should not be taught cognitive skills like deductive reasoning as it might undermine their belief systems. 

post #117 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.

 

 

I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb. 

post #118 of 197

God I miss Melgross!

appleinsider has become the tallest_skil channel. all crap, all the time.

post #119 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb. 

I believe I read a study about a year ago on a Wednesday in July about how the US energy costs per capita has been reduced. I don't know how much of this is paper related savings but I assume that overall efficiency in many industries are responsible even as we do move to more electronics in out everyday lives. I'll see if I can locate it...

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #120 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.

I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.

I think that my favorite quotester, Zappa, said it best: "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls products from government-backed 'green electronics' list