This move by Apple would be admirable, if anthropogenic Global Warming was something factual, rather than myth.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
Yes there are cycles, clearly evidenced in the ice records and the latest research shows those cycles of cooling and warming were trending cooler over all. Only in since the mass use of fossil fuels has man managed to drastically reverse that over all cooling trend.
The spewing out of Rush's talking points simply cannot overcome the fact the overwhelming view of the scientific community world wide is in broad agreement. It is a 'flat earth' thing to refute the evidence. That refusal to see or understand the evidence seems to be strongest in right wing America. I have to wonder why? Is it a religious thing, a money thing or an educational thing? That really would be an interesting study.
It is not that long ago very similar discussions were going on about the dangers of smoking and the few scientists and their many followers adamantly argued that there was no evidence to support the 'alarmists'. History is full of similar moments.
If you really cared for the environment you would be worried about all the other stuff we are shoving in to the atmosphere rather than CO2. CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere, essential for life for biochemical not energy reasons. There is a whole host of other dangerous chemicals being put in to the environment that have known risks and a greater potential for significant harm.
Yes, there are far more harmful chemicals we're putting into the atmosphere than CO2, but we're putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than those. The CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not a natural part of the atmosphere: the carbon part was buried in the earth's crust for millions of years (and life's biochemical reactions were just fine) until we humans dug it up and started exploiting it. As a result, there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the natural state of things. And contrary to what another poster believes, the oceans haven't been releasing CO2 because of greater solar output. The oceans have actually been absorbing some of the CO2 we've been putting into the atmosphere, which is causing it's pH to drop (not good for fish). While the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases with increases in temperature, a particular gas does not have to be released (others can be instead), and the environment is certainly much more complicated than a flask of water in chem lab.
In any case, regardless what you believe about climate change, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is not good for the environment (at least the fish are getting screwed) and as intelligent life forms, we should be making an effort to leave the earth more or less the way we found it so that new life can make use of it after we're gone. Reducing CO2 emissions would be a good step in the right direction, as we're utterly failing that goal.
Has Al Gore, Apple's resident environmentalist, ever spoken out on this? :
Quote:
Foxconn and Apple made headlines this summer, after a prototype 4G iPhone went missing from one of the company's factories. After an employee was questioned about the matter, he reportedly committed suicide.
You ask me: Tax all fuels at $1.00/gal, Tax snack food at $1.00 per serving and tax the hell out of oil, gas, drilling companies. Of course they'd call that socialism because that's what all the other REAL DEVELOPED countries are doing.
What makes even more sense is to require ALL companies (not just petro) to price cradle-to-grave costs for their products into their products instead of throwing the costs for cleanup onto the taxpayer.
You should pay for the cleanup/disposal costs of anything you buy because it is a cost of manufacturing... just one that companies pass onto the taxpayer.
The fact is that if (e.g.) oil companies had to not only price the cost of drilling into a gallon of gas, but also the costs for the military to keep their oil flowing from the middle east, the costs to the economy for the pollution and the resulting health costs, alternative power would become instantly competitive.
I have to laugh at how anti-solar/wind folks decry subsidies to those, when oil is the recipient of the biggest ongoing subsidies in the world.
That no one seems to care 1 iota about the human costs of "going green." Make no mistake about it - if it wasn't 1) expensive, 2) potentially damaging to millions of jobs and 3) harmful to the progress of 3rd world countries we would have jumped on board a long time ago.
Going back to the previous thread - people found some science to support that smoking causes lung cancer so we started anti-smoking campaigns and that's good because the fact is nobody dies from NOT smoking. Now contrast that with the fear about global warming. There are still millions upon millions of people without proper food, water and shelter. As I cited in the previous discussion thread, when we moved to ban DDT because of its environmental impact Malaria was on a slow path to extinction and now it's thriving because the replacement isn't nearly as effective and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people have died because of that.
Now, maybe you're all about sacrificing humans for the sake of the environment (never mind we've never actually found any evidence that banning DDT has done anything). And you don't mind the fact that "global warming" has now turned into "climate change" since it's not technically warming anymore. But I'd recommend we are 100% sure of what's happening before we go throwing the people living in the 3rd world under the proverbial bus. Would the EU or America suffer from going green? Most assuredly not, however, it's nothing but harmful to the development of 3rd world countries so I ask you, which is more important?
Maybe it's easy to disassociate from Africa because you don't know anyone there or you don't know anyone who's ever gotten Malaria but unless you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the planet it's disingenuous, at best, to willingly sacrifice the lives of others while you're sitting pretty in your solar powered home of the future.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
It is not that long ago very similar discussions were going on about the dangers of smoking and the few scientists and their many followers adamantly argued that there was no evidence to support the 'alarmists'. History is full of similar moments.
I'm curious how something could coincide "exactly" with the start of the industrial revolution when experts on the subject aren't even sure exactly when it started. (A year rage of about 70 years is usually given, 1780-1840 during which time the global temp didn't really do anything associated with that you claim)
(last link is a very pro-global warming site and it still doesn't support your hypothesis about global warming - do you have a link or something to back it up?)
Also, see previous post about how this is absolutely nothing like the dangers of smoking...
That no one seems to care 1 iota about the human costs of "going green." Make no mistake about it - if it wasn't 1) expensive, 2) potentially damaging to millions of jobs and 3) harmful to the progress of 3rd world countries we would have jumped on board a long time ago.
Going back to the previous thread - people found some science to support that smoking causes lung cancer so we started anti-smoking campaigns and that's good because the fact is nobody dies from NOT smoking. Now contrast that with the fear about global warming. There are still millions upon millions of people without proper food, water and shelter. As I cited in the previous discussion thread, when we moved to ban DDT because of its environmental impact Malaria was on a slow path to extinction and now it's thriving because the replacement isn't nearly as effective and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people have died because of that.
Now, maybe you're all about sacrificing humans for the sake of the environment (never mind we've never actually found any evidence that banning DDT has done anything). And you don't mind the fact that "global warming" has now turned into "climate change" since it's not technically warming anymore. But I'd recommend we are 100% sure of what's happening before we go throwing the people living in the 3rd world under the proverbial bus. Would the EU or America suffer from going green? Most assuredly not, however, it's nothing but harmful to the development of 3rd world countries so I ask you, which is more important?
Maybe it's easy to disassociate from Africa because you don't know anyone there or you don't know anyone who's ever gotten Malaria but unless you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the planet it's disingenuous, at best, to willingly sacrifice the lives of others while you're sitting pretty in you solar powered home of the future.
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
YES we are
THE WEST is saying that 3rd and furth world countriers jump past straight to beyind where we are today
for example
massive solar arrays in central and north central africa coupled with miiiions of single solar units for street lights and whatevers . Will reduce burning of soil saving wood and
WE will cut all aid at some point until the polluters comply. Tough love and all that .
.
of course we don't look in the mirror to see wastful we are .
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) The idiot prize goes to the right wingers who attempt to justify their transparent, status quo, pro-business (i.e. pro-subsidy for business,) political stance with phony pretend science that has been hastily created for just this purpose.
The fact that these people are so ignorant of the facts does not surprise me since it is obvious from their pathetic posts, and I imagine that it is simply an expression of their generalized fear stemming from ignorance and desperation. But what does surprise me is how willing they are to be led around with these inane pseudoscientific notions, like a bunch of sheep. Whatever talking point is most recently trotted out on FOX News is paraded out as if it's the latest scientific consensus (today its the job scare tactic.) Just like real sheep, one will imagine it sees an imaginary snare and immediately jump over it and every other sheep, out of fear, will also jump the nonexistent obstacle and they'll all feel better. All the time gleefully unaware that they are all being led with care . . . to market and slaughter.
I'm the first to point out the how ridiculous and self serving organizations like Greenpeace can be, but they tend to be overly emotional amplifiers of social concern and are a drop in the bucket compared to these overly emotional amplifiers of irrational, dogma which is created to serve corporate interest. I suggest you guys mosey over to "Mac Daily News," where you are more appreciated.
You believe in the per review system, many people see it as a means of censoring conflicting opinion.
You believe in New Scientist magazine.
You have a really bad attitude where you emphatically claim to be right in your beliefs and put people with other opinions down.
Not every argument has 2 sides. Just because you "stand" proudly for yourself does not mean your opinion is legitimate.
If I have an opinion that 1 watt of sunlight will heat a certain glass of water to a certain temperature, is my opinion worthwhile? Does "what I think" matter just because I can bandy myself around talking noises out of my mouth, or typing nonsense with my fingers? Of course not! It still doesn't matter what I think on climate change.... because what I think is irrelevant.
That's the kind of thinking that science-acquainted people learn to do. When people are deprived of a basic education, they sometimes fail to grasp science. But it is worth pointing out that many people, with no education at all, also can learn to grasp science if they are smart. It is the slow people who never received an education, who doubt science. Their thoughts on science matters are best ignored.
I think the Chamber's record is pretty clear - business over environment. Apple is to be applauded for their work and stand.
So you think it's a fantastic idea for the EPA to force congress to push through legislation on the people?! You think it's fine for them to force their will upon the people without a vote?!
Do you even understand how dangerous a stance that is?!
The EPA is, admittedly, stretching the authority it has been given in an effort to bully the congress into passing a bill on the threat that if they don't the EPA will declare CO2 a dangerous emission! Use you're freakin brains people, open your eyes to what is going on!
Yes, there are far more harmful chemicals we're putting into the atmosphere than CO2, but we're putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than those. The CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not a natural part of the atmosphere: the carbon part was buried in the earth's crust for millions of years (and life's biochemical reactions were just fine) until we humans dug it up and started exploiting it. As a result, there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the natural state of things. And contrary to what another poster believes, the oceans haven't been releasing CO2 because of greater solar output. The oceans have actually been absorbing some of the CO2 we've been putting into the atmosphere, which is causing it's pH to drop (not good for fish). While the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases with increases in temperature, a particular gas does not have to be released (others can be instead), and the environment is certainly much more complicated than a flask of water in chem lab.
In any case, regardless what you believe about climate change, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is not good for the environment (at least the fish are getting screwed) and as intelligent life forms, we should be making an effort to leave the earth more or less the way we found it so that new life can make use of it after we're gone. Reducing CO2 emissions would be a good step in the right direction, as we're utterly failing that goal.
So by your standard you are a pollutant. Every breath you take is ruining the earth we live on. How can people be so stupid as to not understand the danger in giving a government the authority to treat u & me like bio hazards!
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
Nobody? Umm, that's the base of the Kyoto Treaty - everybody in it. And the banning of DDT wasn't a 3rd world thing either - the US banned it's use in state but did this clever deal where if you wanted any money from the US you had to stop using it as well - effectively banning it from the globe (the EU and a few other big countries were also supportive of banning DDT at the time).
Furthermore - who said global warming has to be a bad thing?
People around the world have been adapting to sea level rises for over 20,000 years, I'm still not sure why we're acting as if it's the end of days scenario that people in Florida would have to move in-land a mile or so.
So you think it's a fantastic idea for the EPA to force congress to push through legislation on the people?! You think it's fine for them to force their will upon the people without a vote?!
Do you even understand how dangerous a stance that is?!
The EPA is, admittedly, stretching the authority it has been given in an effort to bully the congress into passing a bill on the threat that if they don't the EPA will declare CO2 a dangerous emission! Use you're freakin brains people, open your eyes to what is going on!
Ya know the pure irony in all of this right? The only reason the EPA has the ability to do this and impose their will on those who doubt the impact of "climate change" is because of the Bush Administration - oh the irony!!
Why is Apple choosing to throw itself into the middle of the climate change debate, which has been hugely politicized? Resigning from the Chamber was pretty immature of Apple, IMO. Does Apple employ climate change scientists who are knowledgeable on the matter? I highly doubt it. I know Apple has been on a green trip lately, but seriously, this seems like an over-reaction on Apple's part. The Chamber has more pressing matters other than to make Apple happy- like, the costs and effects thereof of implementing wide-spread greenhouse gas reduction technology across the nation. Sure, the emission of greenhouse gasses could be limited from what it is currently at, I'm all for that, but such things do not change over night, and it is unrealistic to think that the Chamber would introduce sea-change legislation, particularly in a bad economy with businesses and industries hurting. Further regulations are what we do not need right now. That, and the jury is still out on climate change (once known as "global warming," but liberals abused, politicized, and dirtied that word). Rather than stomping its feet and resigning from the Chamber's board, maybe Apple should have been more proactive and engaging, or as the Chamberman said, "more understanding."
Nobody? Umm, that's the base of the Kyoto Treaty - everybody in it. And the banning of DDT wasn't a 3rd world thing either - the US banned it's use in state but did this clever deal where if you wanted any money from the US you had to stop using it as well - effectively banning it from the globe (the EU and a few other big countries were also supportive of banning DDT at the time).
Furthermore - who said global warming has to be a bad thing?
People around the world have been adapting to sea level rises for over 20,000 years, I'm still not sure why we're acting as if it's the end of days scenario that people in Florida would have to move in-land a mile or so.
If it's your home that is being lost to the sea wonder if you'd feel different.
I will agree though, the debate even among scientists isn't even over so how can anyone say that we really understand the cause of global warming fully.
We should all do our part to act like it could be a major issue & WILLINGLY make changes to our lives & businesses to help be more "green". I absolutely don't believe the government should be forcing people to do anything, instead why don't they try giving worthwhile incentives to companies who get on board with green?
My personal opinion is because the greenies are just as power hungry as the corporations & they don't want to have to debate the issue or come to a consensus, they just want to force their views on everyone.
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) ...
</righteous indignation >
Getting 100% technical here - water vapor is the very definition of a greenhouse gas. Whether or not it has an impact is beside the point - the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas puts your entire argument into a tailspin.
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
Ya know the pure irony in all of this right? The only reason the EPA has the ability to do this and impose their will on those who doubt the impact of "climate change" is because of the Bush Administration - oh the irony!!
Correction, is because our entire government is in the pocket of special interests. Bush didn't do all this on his own. Doesn't do our country any good to blind ourselves by passing the blame around from individual to individual, we need to see the full picture & understand that the corruption is rooted deep in all of our government branches. It's even making it's way into our judicial system!
Comments
This move by Apple would be admirable, if anthropogenic Global Warming was something factual, rather than myth.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
Yes there are cycles, clearly evidenced in the ice records and the latest research shows those cycles of cooling and warming were trending cooler over all. Only in since the mass use of fossil fuels has man managed to drastically reverse that over all cooling trend.
The spewing out of Rush's talking points simply cannot overcome the fact the overwhelming view of the scientific community world wide is in broad agreement. It is a 'flat earth' thing to refute the evidence. That refusal to see or understand the evidence seems to be strongest in right wing America. I have to wonder why? Is it a religious thing, a money thing or an educational thing? That really would be an interesting study.
It is not that long ago very similar discussions were going on about the dangers of smoking and the few scientists and their many followers adamantly argued that there was no evidence to support the 'alarmists'. History is full of similar moments.
If you really cared for the environment you would be worried about all the other stuff we are shoving in to the atmosphere rather than CO2. CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere, essential for life for biochemical not energy reasons. There is a whole host of other dangerous chemicals being put in to the environment that have known risks and a greater potential for significant harm.
Yes, there are far more harmful chemicals we're putting into the atmosphere than CO2, but we're putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than those. The CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not a natural part of the atmosphere: the carbon part was buried in the earth's crust for millions of years (and life's biochemical reactions were just fine) until we humans dug it up and started exploiting it. As a result, there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the natural state of things. And contrary to what another poster believes, the oceans haven't been releasing CO2 because of greater solar output. The oceans have actually been absorbing some of the CO2 we've been putting into the atmosphere, which is causing it's pH to drop (not good for fish). While the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases with increases in temperature, a particular gas does not have to be released (others can be instead), and the environment is certainly much more complicated than a flask of water in chem lab.
In any case, regardless what you believe about climate change, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is not good for the environment (at least the fish are getting screwed) and as intelligent life forms, we should be making an effort to leave the earth more or less the way we found it so that new life can make use of it after we're gone. Reducing CO2 emissions would be a good step in the right direction, as we're utterly failing that goal.
Has Al Gore, Apple's resident environmentalist, ever spoken out on this? :
Foxconn and Apple made headlines this summer, after a prototype 4G iPhone went missing from one of the company's factories. After an employee was questioned about the matter, he reportedly committed suicide.
You ask me: Tax all fuels at $1.00/gal, Tax snack food at $1.00 per serving and tax the hell out of oil, gas, drilling companies. Of course they'd call that socialism because that's what all the other REAL DEVELOPED countries are doing.
What makes even more sense is to require ALL companies (not just petro) to price cradle-to-grave costs for their products into their products instead of throwing the costs for cleanup onto the taxpayer.
You should pay for the cleanup/disposal costs of anything you buy because it is a cost of manufacturing... just one that companies pass onto the taxpayer.
The fact is that if (e.g.) oil companies had to not only price the cost of drilling into a gallon of gas, but also the costs for the military to keep their oil flowing from the middle east, the costs to the economy for the pollution and the resulting health costs, alternative power would become instantly competitive.
I have to laugh at how anti-solar/wind folks decry subsidies to those, when oil is the recipient of the biggest ongoing subsidies in the world.
Going back to the previous thread - people found some science to support that smoking causes lung cancer so we started anti-smoking campaigns and that's good because the fact is nobody dies from NOT smoking. Now contrast that with the fear about global warming. There are still millions upon millions of people without proper food, water and shelter. As I cited in the previous discussion thread, when we moved to ban DDT because of its environmental impact Malaria was on a slow path to extinction and now it's thriving because the replacement isn't nearly as effective and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people have died because of that.
Now, maybe you're all about sacrificing humans for the sake of the environment (never mind we've never actually found any evidence that banning DDT has done anything). And you don't mind the fact that "global warming" has now turned into "climate change" since it's not technically warming anymore. But I'd recommend we are 100% sure of what's happening before we go throwing the people living in the 3rd world under the proverbial bus. Would the EU or America suffer from going green? Most assuredly not, however, it's nothing but harmful to the development of 3rd world countries so I ask you, which is more important?
Maybe it's easy to disassociate from Africa because you don't know anyone there or you don't know anyone who's ever gotten Malaria but unless you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the planet it's disingenuous, at best, to willingly sacrifice the lives of others while you're sitting pretty in your solar powered home of the future.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
It is not that long ago very similar discussions were going on about the dangers of smoking and the few scientists and their many followers adamantly argued that there was no evidence to support the 'alarmists'. History is full of similar moments.
I'm curious how something could coincide "exactly" with the start of the industrial revolution when experts on the subject aren't even sure exactly when it started. (A year rage of about 70 years is usually given, 1780-1840 during which time the global temp didn't really do anything associated with that you claim)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
(last link is a very pro-global warming site and it still doesn't support your hypothesis about global warming - do you have a link or something to back it up?)
Also, see previous post about how this is absolutely nothing like the dangers of smoking...
That no one seems to care 1 iota about the human costs of "going green." Make no mistake about it - if it wasn't 1) expensive, 2) potentially damaging to millions of jobs and 3) harmful to the progress of 3rd world countries we would have jumped on board a long time ago.
Going back to the previous thread - people found some science to support that smoking causes lung cancer so we started anti-smoking campaigns and that's good because the fact is nobody dies from NOT smoking. Now contrast that with the fear about global warming. There are still millions upon millions of people without proper food, water and shelter. As I cited in the previous discussion thread, when we moved to ban DDT because of its environmental impact Malaria was on a slow path to extinction and now it's thriving because the replacement isn't nearly as effective and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people have died because of that.
Now, maybe you're all about sacrificing humans for the sake of the environment (never mind we've never actually found any evidence that banning DDT has done anything). And you don't mind the fact that "global warming" has now turned into "climate change" since it's not technically warming anymore. But I'd recommend we are 100% sure of what's happening before we go throwing the people living in the 3rd world under the proverbial bus. Would the EU or America suffer from going green? Most assuredly not, however, it's nothing but harmful to the development of 3rd world countries so I ask you, which is more important?
Maybe it's easy to disassociate from Africa because you don't know anyone there or you don't know anyone who's ever gotten Malaria but unless you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the planet it's disingenuous, at best, to willingly sacrifice the lives of others while you're sitting pretty in you solar powered home of the future.
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
YES we are
THE WEST is saying that 3rd and furth world countriers jump past straight to beyind where we are today
for example
massive solar arrays in central and north central africa coupled with miiiions of single solar units for street lights and whatevers . Will reduce burning of soil saving wood and
WE will cut all aid at some point until the polluters comply. Tough love and all that .
.
of course we don't look in the mirror to see wastful we are .
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) The idiot prize goes to the right wingers who attempt to justify their transparent, status quo, pro-business (i.e. pro-subsidy for business,) political stance with phony pretend science that has been hastily created for just this purpose.
The fact that these people are so ignorant of the facts does not surprise me since it is obvious from their pathetic posts, and I imagine that it is simply an expression of their generalized fear stemming from ignorance and desperation. But what does surprise me is how willing they are to be led around with these inane pseudoscientific notions, like a bunch of sheep. Whatever talking point is most recently trotted out on FOX News is paraded out as if it's the latest scientific consensus (today its the job scare tactic.) Just like real sheep, one will imagine it sees an imaginary snare and immediately jump over it and every other sheep, out of fear, will also jump the nonexistent obstacle and they'll all feel better. All the time gleefully unaware that they are all being led with care . . . to market and slaughter.
I'm the first to point out the how ridiculous and self serving organizations like Greenpeace can be, but they tend to be overly emotional amplifiers of social concern and are a drop in the bucket compared to these overly emotional amplifiers of irrational, dogma which is created to serve corporate interest. I suggest you guys mosey over to "Mac Daily News," where you are more appreciated.
</righteous indignation >
its far cheaper to go green than not .
EXCEPT everyone has too do it at the same time to mitigate the pain/
That is absolutely wrong
You believe in the per review system, many people see it as a means of censoring conflicting opinion.
You believe in New Scientist magazine.
You have a really bad attitude where you emphatically claim to be right in your beliefs and put people with other opinions down.
Not every argument has 2 sides. Just because you "stand" proudly for yourself does not mean your opinion is legitimate.
If I have an opinion that 1 watt of sunlight will heat a certain glass of water to a certain temperature, is my opinion worthwhile? Does "what I think" matter just because I can bandy myself around talking noises out of my mouth, or typing nonsense with my fingers? Of course not! It still doesn't matter what I think on climate change.... because what I think is irrelevant.
That's the kind of thinking that science-acquainted people learn to do. When people are deprived of a basic education, they sometimes fail to grasp science. But it is worth pointing out that many people, with no education at all, also can learn to grasp science if they are smart. It is the slow people who never received an education, who doubt science. Their thoughts on science matters are best ignored.
I would expect them to be upset at losing Apple.
I think the Chamber's record is pretty clear - business over environment. Apple is to be applauded for their work and stand.
So you think it's a fantastic idea for the EPA to force congress to push through legislation on the people?! You think it's fine for them to force their will upon the people without a vote?!
Do you even understand how dangerous a stance that is?!
The EPA is, admittedly, stretching the authority it has been given in an effort to bully the congress into passing a bill on the threat that if they don't the EPA will declare CO2 a dangerous emission! Use you're freakin brains people, open your eyes to what is going on!
Yes, there are far more harmful chemicals we're putting into the atmosphere than CO2, but we're putting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than those. The CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is not a natural part of the atmosphere: the carbon part was buried in the earth's crust for millions of years (and life's biochemical reactions were just fine) until we humans dug it up and started exploiting it. As a result, there is excess CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the natural state of things. And contrary to what another poster believes, the oceans haven't been releasing CO2 because of greater solar output. The oceans have actually been absorbing some of the CO2 we've been putting into the atmosphere, which is causing it's pH to drop (not good for fish). While the ability of liquids to dissolve gases decreases with increases in temperature, a particular gas does not have to be released (others can be instead), and the environment is certainly much more complicated than a flask of water in chem lab.
In any case, regardless what you believe about climate change, pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is not good for the environment (at least the fish are getting screwed) and as intelligent life forms, we should be making an effort to leave the earth more or less the way we found it so that new life can make use of it after we're gone. Reducing CO2 emissions would be a good step in the right direction, as we're utterly failing that goal.
So by your standard you are a pollutant. Every breath you take is ruining the earth we live on. How can people be so stupid as to not understand the danger in giving a government the authority to treat u & me like bio hazards!
No one is talking about banning or restricting third world countries from using fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of CO2 emissions in the US and developed countries will have no effect on them. The problems in third world countries are largely because of the social-political conditions inside their own borders, not because they lack the means to provide themselves with clean water, food, or shelter.
Nobody? Umm, that's the base of the Kyoto Treaty - everybody in it. And the banning of DDT wasn't a 3rd world thing either - the US banned it's use in state but did this clever deal where if you wanted any money from the US you had to stop using it as well - effectively banning it from the globe (the EU and a few other big countries were also supportive of banning DDT at the time).
Furthermore - who said global warming has to be a bad thing?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32189596...ience-science/
People around the world have been adapting to sea level rises for over 20,000 years, I'm still not sure why we're acting as if it's the end of days scenario that people in Florida would have to move in-land a mile or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png
So you think it's a fantastic idea for the EPA to force congress to push through legislation on the people?! You think it's fine for them to force their will upon the people without a vote?!
Do you even understand how dangerous a stance that is?!
The EPA is, admittedly, stretching the authority it has been given in an effort to bully the congress into passing a bill on the threat that if they don't the EPA will declare CO2 a dangerous emission! Use you're freakin brains people, open your eyes to what is going on!
Ya know the pure irony in all of this right? The only reason the EPA has the ability to do this and impose their will on those who doubt the impact of "climate change" is because of the Bush Administration - oh the irony!!
Yes indeed.
Nobody? Umm, that's the base of the Kyoto Treaty - everybody in it. And the banning of DDT wasn't a 3rd world thing either - the US banned it's use in state but did this clever deal where if you wanted any money from the US you had to stop using it as well - effectively banning it from the globe (the EU and a few other big countries were also supportive of banning DDT at the time).
Furthermore - who said global warming has to be a bad thing?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32189596...ience-science/
People around the world have been adapting to sea level rises for over 20,000 years, I'm still not sure why we're acting as if it's the end of days scenario that people in Florida would have to move in-land a mile or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._Sea_Level.png
If it's your home that is being lost to the sea wonder if you'd feel different.
I will agree though, the debate even among scientists isn't even over so how can anyone say that we really understand the cause of global warming fully.
We should all do our part to act like it could be a major issue & WILLINGLY make changes to our lives & businesses to help be more "green". I absolutely don't believe the government should be forcing people to do anything, instead why don't they try giving worthwhile incentives to companies who get on board with green?
My personal opinion is because the greenies are just as power hungry as the corporations & they don't want to have to debate the issue or come to a consensus, they just want to force their views on everyone.
<righteous indignation>
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) ...
</righteous indignation >
Getting 100% technical here - water vapor is the very definition of a greenhouse gas. Whether or not it has an impact is beside the point - the fact that you think water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas puts your entire argument into a tailspin.
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Ya know the pure irony in all of this right? The only reason the EPA has the ability to do this and impose their will on those who doubt the impact of "climate change" is because of the Bush Administration - oh the irony!!
Correction, is because our entire government is in the pocket of special interests. Bush didn't do all this on his own. Doesn't do our country any good to blind ourselves by passing the blame around from individual to individual, we need to see the full picture & understand that the corruption is rooted deep in all of our government branches. It's even making it's way into our judicial system!