Apple abandons U.S. Chamber of Commerce over climate policy

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 149
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    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!
  • Reply 82 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 83 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 84 of 149
    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?
  • Reply 85 of 149
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    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.
  • Reply 86 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 87 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 88 of 149
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    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.
  • Reply 89 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 90 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 91 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 92 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 93 of 149
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    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.
  • Reply 94 of 149
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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==
  • Reply 95 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 96 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 97 of 149
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    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
  • Reply 98 of 149
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 99 of 149
    ruel24ruel24 Posts: 432member
  • Reply 100 of 149
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,204member
    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'.
Sign In or Register to comment.