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

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 102 of 149
    linjlinj Posts: 12member
    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.
  • Reply 103 of 149
    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."
  • Reply 104 of 149
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member
    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.
  • Reply 105 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 106 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 107 of 149
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    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
  • Reply 108 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 109 of 149
    ruel24ruel24 Posts: 432member
    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.
  • Reply 110 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 111 of 149
    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
  • Reply 112 of 149
    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...
  • Reply 113 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 114 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 115 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 116 of 149
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    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.
  • Reply 117 of 149
    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
  • Reply 118 of 149
    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.
  • Reply 119 of 149
    philipmphilipm Posts: 239member
    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.
  • Reply 120 of 149
    To all the nutjobs out there claiming there's a global socialist conspiracy to help GE or China, or whatever:



    You should be aware that the politicization of the global warming issue is a particularly American phenomenon. You've been told in the USA to hate Al Gore and what he represents, and so you do. I'm sure you have a conspiracy theory about why he was awarded a Nobel prize too. You think the global warming issue is a left-wing one. You are mistaken.



    Just as in the American debate on health care (reinventing the wheel!), the American right wing is isolated in comparison to its European and Asian counterparts. Your fear of "socialist" whatever is simply a Cold War tactic used by the Republicans to drum up support for their pro-industry, pro-fossil fuel positions.



    Many (most?) European conservatives fully support their national health systems, and fully realize the need for action to slow down or reverse climate change. So Apple won't lose out if you nutjobs object to their admirable statement in withdrawing from the Chamber of Commerce, because it will only be a small percentage of Americans who object.
Sign In or Register to comment.