All the responses on this I think highlight just how big a mistake it was for Apple to rashly excuse itself from the chamber. People are not likely to see it as their opposition to any corruption in the chamber dealings (which possibly they were implying) but instead are going to see it as their support for the EPA (which has been equally shady as of late). This could have a very bad effect on who they potentially do business with, course maybe they aren't too shaken up about that.
It's all a big mess, tough time to be a business I guess.
It's a mistake to have principles?
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
No, it's a mistake to take your ball & go home. It implies that you agree with the extreme opposition. My criticism was not of their moral stance but of their business decision. Businesses do well by themselves to stay away from political platforms. They went beyond taking a moral stance to political posturing.
Again, as I stated before, my comments were on what might be perceived of them not on what their actual stance is. For all I know the chamber could have told Apple their green initiatives were stupid. You keep missing the point that I'm not defending the chamber in any way.
We don't move people by slamming the door in their face, we move them by winning them over. I would have rather seen Apple change them from the inside out, would have been a lot more effective. Goes right along with the need for discourse in this country, time to stop just calling people names or stomping off in disgust when we disagree.
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
(...) The world ceased to get warmer in 1998, which is over a decade ago, and in fact the evaerage temperature has been declining since then. (...)
Only? So the period when the Roman Empire flourished was notably chilly was it? And the Medieval warm period never really happened?
Air purity is dropping quickly, if you haven't noticed. I don't need a graph to know something is wrong when I try to take a nice, clean breath of air. Where I live, it seems that it never used to smell like car exhaust quite as much as it does now. It makes my throat scratchy and takes away my sense of smell. There is a brownish-grey haze on the horizon, especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Unless you live on a mountain in Switzerland or something, than you can't help but notice the negative effects of carbon emissions in the U.S. Take a look at the following article... I'm sure there are hundreds more, too.
"A new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States."
There is more to carbon emissions than just temperature. Also, with the rate at which trees are being depleted throughout the world, the atmosphere is not being cleansed quickly enough. It seems that wasteful wood-seeking companies do not realize that trees are the reason we are all alive (as they produce oxygen and such). To me it is a "Duh!" situation.
Do you really think that chronic emissions produced by millions of cars and manufacturing facilities is not going to cause serious problems from decade to decade for the atmosphere and, consequently, people's lungs? Earth's temperatures do change naturally, but what's happening now is something human-related. My grandmother said that the seasons used to be so individual: summer, autumn, winter, spring--now it seems to go from summer to winter with a far lesser degree of transition than when she was younger.
No, it's a mistake to take your ball & go home. It implies that you agree with the extreme opposition. My criticism was not of their moral stance but of their business decision. Businesses do well by themselves to stay away from political platforms. They went beyond taking a moral stance to political posturing.
Again, as I stated before, my comments were on what might be perceived of them not on what their actual stance is. For all I know the chamber could have told Apple their green initiatives were stupid. You keep missing the point that I'm not defending the chamber in any way.
We don't move people by slamming the door in their face, we move them by winning them over. I would have rather seen Apple change them from the inside out, would have been a lot more effective. Goes right along with the need for discourse in this country, time to stop just calling people names or stomping off in disgust when we disagree.
The USCOC's website states,"Directors determine the U.S. Chamber’s policy positions on business issues and advise the U.S. Chamber on appropriate strategies to pursue. Through their participation in meetings and activities held across the nation, Directors help implement and promote U.S. Chamber policies and objectives."
“We just weren’t clear in how decisions on climate and energy were being made,” said Brad Figel, Nike’s director of government relations. “They’re not being made at the board-of-director level, because we’re a member of the board of directors. We were not consulted. We’re convinced that’s not really where the action on climate change is being made.”
Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, defended the Chamber’s with this speculation: “Generally speaking, what you have is a charismatic leader who makes the policy decisions, probably based on the policy recommendations of staff … and a board that is mostly ceremonial.”
Possibly that contributed to Apple's decision to depart.
Possibly that contributed to Apple's decision to depart.
And how do we perceive that decision? Many of us are applauding it; others call it extreme political posturing. Environmental posturing, perhaps, but political? Extreme? No way.
You're actually the one that brought up that your parents having advanced degrees somehow trumps whatever Hez and I know - that's on you buddy - sorry...
Actually, as you know, I mentioned that in a different vein and in response to a different poster. So you brought it up when you tried, pathetically, to apply it to this argument. But again that's your faulty logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
Also, we can continue this later when you've found a computer that's not on a 14.4 kbps connection
Actually I'm out of town and on a spotty wifi connection, but if it doesn't surprise me that you expect me to read a 250 page document before addressing anything I say. It's a basic tactic of "people like yourself."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
and can actually read the senate document that DOESN'T base it's findings on the Heartland Institute and gives dozens upon dozens of quotes from respected Scientists around the globe (including the first woman in the world to get a PhD in meteorology
Now does that make her more qualified than other men and women who have PhDs in Meteorology and who are actually active in the field? (Simpson, has not authored a peer reviewed paper for several years, although she has written opinion pieces an blogged.) Or does it just make her more qualified than climatologists and paleoclimatologist who actually work in the field of climate change? (She's a respected meteorologist and cloud expert.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
and Nobel prize winners). Beyond that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of links to actual, peer reviewed articles. If you can't click on any of the links and can't actually address any of my points that's really a pathetic way to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong...
As I've said, I pretty familiar with the literature and what they really point to are disagreements and discrepancies in the nature of climate change, not a refutation of it. As I said, that's normal for scientific papers. Its sort of like how scientists still are arguing over how evolution works, punctuated equilibrium versus gradual change, etc. This doesn't mean they disagree that evolution is occuring, just the mechanics of the process.
Why do companies that are causing environmental problems always use job loss as an excuse to continue their irresponsibility? It is just plain stupid.
You can change your manufacturing habits without losing jobs. You may not make more profit at the beginning but everybody gains. Profit is the only word these bastards know about. More money and more profit, nothing more.
No matter how much profit they accumulate, we are all going to suffer. The air quality problem in China, Mexico or the US, affects the whole world. We all live on this earth and what happens in any part, affects all of us.
It is a shame that this greedy organization, named Chamber of Commerce, cannot see beyond dollar sign.
If you start with the premise that people usually tend to make things up, that people usually distort the truth, that people usually think they can get away with such behaviour, and that people are motivated mainly be public fame, money and power and not by higher motives such as justice, truth and enlightenment and not by the respect and affection they receive from the persons they actually directly interact with, then it might seem possible or even plausible that the whole climate change issue is a big hoax.
My main premise however is rather that humans do err, do make mistakes, and that the only way is to cross check and re-validate as much as possible. And that is how science works. Have you ever published a peer-reviewed scientific article, have you ever referred one? Have you ever gone over the scientific literature to figure out, for example the pH dependence of a specific process? Tried to sort partially conflicting results and match with your experiments?
Which brings me back to this graph, on top it has green bar marking a 41 kyear cycle, or 41'000 years in plain English. The x-axis labels for this period indicate a range from about 1.2 and 2.6 million years, or about 1.4 million years as a duration, in plain English 1'400'000 years. It does not take an advanced degree to see hat these two number do not match. Maybe you quoted the graph out of context, but taken on its own, such an error does not really instill credibility upon its creators.
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
Wrong, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas, fraudulent climate models depend on the premise that an increase in CO2 although insignificantly raising temperature, it will in turn increase the concentration of water vapor, and thereby further raise temperature, being the primary contriuter to the greenhouse effect; however this misguided assumption produces a positive feedback loop, which if true would have created a run-away greenhouse effect millennium ago, which obviously hadn't occurred, as CO2 concentrations had been several times higher than they are today. In fact CO2 concentration can not grow unbounded, as the worlds oceans stores the bulk of the planet's CO2 in buffered solution with calcium carbonate, which itself is sensitive to temperature, where higher temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 and lower temperatures to increase it; thereby in natural balance with global temperature and plant life, as climate cools and there is less plant life, the oceans tend to absorb and store CO2, as the earth warms, seemingly most strongly correlated with solar activity, the oceans tend to release CO2 from solution as likely correspondingly required by plant life. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 200ppm is only marginally able to support robust plant life; all honest indications are that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is most likely the result of increasing global temperature due to solar cycles as we recover from the most recent mini-ice age not the other way round. Any who have been involved in scientific or economic research for that matter know there is a bias in funding sources which tend to produce similarly biased research results; although not universally true, it's certainly prevalent.
I'm pretty sure that in the long term, abolishment of slavery and pushing equal rights has earned business a lot more than it has cost.
I agree that gradual change is to be preferred over revolution when it comes to economical interests, but no change or too slow change can be just as costly.
The problem is too many businesses today are looking at only short term profits and loosing sight of the long term. This is the reason the world economic system is in the shambles it is in--too much focus on quarterly profits with little to no eye on the long term results.
Wrong, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas, fraudulent climate models depend on the premise that an increase in CO2 although insignificantly raising temperature, it will in turn increase the concentration of water vapor, and thereby further raise temperature, being the primary contriuter to the greenhouse effect; however this misguided assumption produces a positive feedback loop, which if true would have created a run-away greenhouse effect millennium ago, which obviously hadn't occurred, as CO2 concentrations had been several times higher than they are today. In fact CO2 concentration can not grow unbounded, as the worlds oceans stores the bulk of the planet's CO2 in buffered solution with calcium carbonate, which itself is sensitive to temperature, where higher temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 and lower temperatures to increase it; thereby in natural balance with global temperature and plant life, as climate cools and there is less plant life, the oceans tend to absorb and store CO2, as the earth warms, seemingly most strongly correlated with solar activity, the oceans tend to release CO2 from solution as likely correspondingly required by plant life. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 200ppm is only marginally able to support robust plant life; all honest indications are that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is most likely the result of increasing global temperature due to solar cycles as we recover from the most recent mini-ice age not the other way round. Any who have been involved in scientific or economic research for that matter know there is a bias in funding sources which tend to produce similarly biased research results; although not universally true, it's certainly prevalent.
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.
Actually, as you know, I mentioned that in a different vein and in response to a different poster. So you brought it up when you tried, pathetically, to apply it to this argument. But again that's your faulty logic.
Actually I'm out of town and on a spotty wifi connection, but if it doesn't surprise me that you expect me to read a 250 page document before addressing anything I say. It's a basic tactic of "people like yourself."
Now does that make her more qualified than other men and women who have PhDs in Meteorology and who are actually active in the field? (Simpson, has not authored a peer reviewed paper for several years, although she has written opinion pieces an blogged.) Or does it just make her more qualified than climatologists and paleoclimatologist who actually work in the field of climate change? (She's a respected meteorologist and cloud expert.)
As I've said, I pretty familiar with the literature and what they really point to are disagreements and discrepancies in the nature of climate change, not a refutation of it. As I said, that's normal for scientific papers. Its sort of like how scientists still are arguing over how evolution works, punctuated equilibrium versus gradual change, etc. This doesn't mean they disagree that evolution is occuring, just the mechanics of the process.
It's a "tactic" to use the words you used back against you? Ok, well, yeah, I did, guilty as charged.
I asked you to look at page 2 of said document but you'd know that if you had, ya know, actually read my post. You can read all of it if you want but there's more than enough information on page 2 to throw a wrench into the system. So, there's "people like myself" telling you to read but just one page - I guess that's too much to ask from "people like yourself."
I never said she was more qualified that anyone else - I'm saying that these scientists that disagree aren't idiots with BS (not Bachelor of Science, the other "BS") degrees - they are exceptionally intelligent people and even more so in their particular field of study so their research should be held in the same regard as other scientists (there are plenty of meteorologists on the pro-side but you don't disregard them because they are meteorologists do you?) but because you don't agree with them you choose not to - whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Many of the dissenters still agree that the earth is getting warmer but to say that 1) it's because of man and, more importantly 2) that the temperature increase currently projected by the new studies (less than .5 degrees C per century) is anything for us to be worried about. That's really the issue here - if the earth is warming and there's nothing we can do about it what exactly is the point of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars "fixing" something that we have no control over? It's a fundamental human trait that we think we can control everything but something are, in all actuality, beyond our control. And even beyond that it's been found that a warmer earth can actually be beneficial to many, many things so who's to say those benefits outweigh whatever realistic consequences there are (note the term realistic - I'm not talking about the Day after Tomorrow - entertaining movie for sure but realistic? About as realistic as transformers...)
Didn't we call this problem global warming 6 months or so ago......since we have had mild summers and an early winter in most places its now called global climate change. Maybe we need more carbon to warm things up So basically we change the name because we obviously don't have any clue whats going on. .....I mean come on, these scientist suggested putting ash in the air in the 70's to avoid another ice age. I mean seriously, they can't even accurately predict next weeks weather, but they can predict the overall climate of the earth changing.
Maybe Apple should get off their political high horse. I love their products, and they have a right to their opinion. Just don't support things that are going to raise our taxes, because then we won't be able to buy your products.
Didn't we call this problem global warming 6 months or so ago......since we have had mild summers and an early winter in most places its now called global climate change. Maybe we need more carbon to warm things up So basically we change the name because we obviously don't have any clue whats going on. .....I mean come on, these scientist suggested putting ash in the air in the 70's to avoid another ice age. I mean seriously, they can't even accurately predict next weeks weather, but they can predict the overall climate of the earth changing.
Maybe Apple should get off their political high horse. I love their products, and they have a right to their opinion. Just don't support things that are going to raise our taxes, because then we won't be able to buy your products.
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.
Indeed, pws and several others here are good examples of a little knowledge being more dangerous than none.
My main premise however is rather that humans do err, do make mistakes, and that the only way is to cross check and re-validate as much as possible. And that is how science works. Have you ever published a peer-reviewed scientific article, have you ever referred one? Have you ever gone over the scientific literature to figure out, for example the pH dependence of a specific process? Tried to sort partially conflicting results and match with your experiments?
Not personally, but my wife is an academic and writes, publishes and reviews papers in hard science based journals. Are you asking because you need some pointers? I'm sure she would be willing to help you with any difficulties you are having.
She picks apart papers by Climatologists for sport.
Quote:
Which brings me back to this graph, on top it has green bar marking a 41 kyear cycle, or 41'000 years in plain English. The x-axis labels for this period indicate a range from about 1.2 and 2.6 million years, or about 1.4 million years as a duration, in plain English 1'400'000 years. It does not take an advanced degree to see hat these two number do not match. Maybe you quoted the graph out of context, but taken on its own, such an error does not really instill credibility upon its creators.
If you look at that article, you may notice further below the graph I included, a more extensive one titled "Temperature of Planet Earth" which the graph in question appears to be a subset of, flipped on the X axis.
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Indeed, pws and several others here are good examples of a little knowledge being more dangerous than none.
I'll leave it at that.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.
Comments
All the responses on this I think highlight just how big a mistake it was for Apple to rashly excuse itself from the chamber. People are not likely to see it as their opposition to any corruption in the chamber dealings (which possibly they were implying) but instead are going to see it as their support for the EPA (which has been equally shady as of late). This could have a very bad effect on who they potentially do business with, course maybe they aren't too shaken up about that.
It's all a big mess, tough time to be a business I guess.
It's a mistake to have principles?
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
It's a mistake to have principles?
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
No, it's a mistake to take your ball & go home. It implies that you agree with the extreme opposition. My criticism was not of their moral stance but of their business decision. Businesses do well by themselves to stay away from political platforms. They went beyond taking a moral stance to political posturing.
Again, as I stated before, my comments were on what might be perceived of them not on what their actual stance is. For all I know the chamber could have told Apple their green initiatives were stupid. You keep missing the point that I'm not defending the chamber in any way.
We don't move people by slamming the door in their face, we move them by winning them over. I would have rather seen Apple change them from the inside out, would have been a lot more effective. Goes right along with the need for discourse in this country, time to stop just calling people names or stomping off in disgust when we disagree.
It's a mistake to have principles?
Apple is a very, very profitable company. They not only can run their own business, they have a significant leeway in the STYLE in which they choose to run it.
If Apple execs want to stand for environmentalism, I will be right there with them. Apple doesn't need the business world's advice. Apple leads the business world. Today it was more valuable than General Electric during trading hours. Bigger than GE!
Other business leaders can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
(...) The world ceased to get warmer in 1998, which is over a decade ago, and in fact the evaerage temperature has been declining since then. (...)
Only? So the period when the Roman Empire flourished was notably chilly was it? And the Medieval warm period never really happened?
Air purity is dropping quickly, if you haven't noticed. I don't need a graph to know something is wrong when I try to take a nice, clean breath of air. Where I live, it seems that it never used to smell like car exhaust quite as much as it does now. It makes my throat scratchy and takes away my sense of smell. There is a brownish-grey haze on the horizon, especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Unless you live on a mountain in Switzerland or something, than you can't help but notice the negative effects of carbon emissions in the U.S. Take a look at the following article... I'm sure there are hundreds more, too.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...103135757.htm#
"A new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States."
There is more to carbon emissions than just temperature. Also, with the rate at which trees are being depleted throughout the world, the atmosphere is not being cleansed quickly enough. It seems that wasteful wood-seeking companies do not realize that trees are the reason we are all alive (as they produce oxygen and such). To me it is a "Duh!" situation.
Do you really think that chronic emissions produced by millions of cars and manufacturing facilities is not going to cause serious problems from decade to decade for the atmosphere and, consequently, people's lungs? Earth's temperatures do change naturally, but what's happening now is something human-related. My grandmother said that the seasons used to be so individual: summer, autumn, winter, spring--now it seems to go from summer to winter with a far lesser degree of transition than when she was younger.
No, it's a mistake to take your ball & go home. It implies that you agree with the extreme opposition. My criticism was not of their moral stance but of their business decision. Businesses do well by themselves to stay away from political platforms. They went beyond taking a moral stance to political posturing.
Again, as I stated before, my comments were on what might be perceived of them not on what their actual stance is. For all I know the chamber could have told Apple their green initiatives were stupid. You keep missing the point that I'm not defending the chamber in any way.
We don't move people by slamming the door in their face, we move them by winning them over. I would have rather seen Apple change them from the inside out, would have been a lot more effective. Goes right along with the need for discourse in this country, time to stop just calling people names or stomping off in disgust when we disagree.
The USCOC's website states,"Directors determine the U.S. Chamber’s policy positions on business issues and advise the U.S. Chamber on appropriate strategies to pursue. Through their participation in meetings and activities held across the nation, Directors help implement and promote U.S. Chamber policies and objectives."
“We just weren’t clear in how decisions on climate and energy were being made,” said Brad Figel, Nike’s director of government relations. “They’re not being made at the board-of-director level, because we’re a member of the board of directors. We were not consulted. We’re convinced that’s not really where the action on climate change is being made.”
Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, defended the Chamber’s with this speculation: “Generally speaking, what you have is a charismatic leader who makes the policy decisions, probably based on the policy recommendations of staff … and a board that is mostly ceremonial.”
Possibly that contributed to Apple's decision to depart.
Possibly that contributed to Apple's decision to depart.
And how do we perceive that decision? Many of us are applauding it; others call it extreme political posturing. Environmental posturing, perhaps, but political? Extreme? No way.
You're actually the one that brought up that your parents having advanced degrees somehow trumps whatever Hez and I know - that's on you buddy - sorry...
Actually, as you know, I mentioned that in a different vein and in response to a different poster. So you brought it up when you tried, pathetically, to apply it to this argument. But again that's your faulty logic.
Also, we can continue this later when you've found a computer that's not on a 14.4 kbps connection
Actually I'm out of town and on a spotty wifi connection, but if it doesn't surprise me that you expect me to read a 250 page document before addressing anything I say. It's a basic tactic of "people like yourself."
and can actually read the senate document that DOESN'T base it's findings on the Heartland Institute and gives dozens upon dozens of quotes from respected Scientists around the globe (including the first woman in the world to get a PhD in meteorology
Now does that make her more qualified than other men and women who have PhDs in Meteorology and who are actually active in the field? (Simpson, has not authored a peer reviewed paper for several years, although she has written opinion pieces an blogged.) Or does it just make her more qualified than climatologists and paleoclimatologist who actually work in the field of climate change? (She's a respected meteorologist and cloud expert.)
and Nobel prize winners). Beyond that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of links to actual, peer reviewed articles. If you can't click on any of the links and can't actually address any of my points that's really a pathetic way to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong...
As I've said, I pretty familiar with the literature and what they really point to are disagreements and discrepancies in the nature of climate change, not a refutation of it. As I said, that's normal for scientific papers. Its sort of like how scientists still are arguing over how evolution works, punctuated equilibrium versus gradual change, etc. This doesn't mean they disagree that evolution is occuring, just the mechanics of the process.
You can change your manufacturing habits without losing jobs. You may not make more profit at the beginning but everybody gains. Profit is the only word these bastards know about. More money and more profit, nothing more.
No matter how much profit they accumulate, we are all going to suffer. The air quality problem in China, Mexico or the US, affects the whole world. We all live on this earth and what happens in any part, affects all of us.
It is a shame that this greedy organization, named Chamber of Commerce, cannot see beyond dollar sign.
If you start with the premise that people usually tend to make things up, that people usually distort the truth, that people usually think they can get away with such behaviour, and that people are motivated mainly be public fame, money and power and not by higher motives such as justice, truth and enlightenment and not by the respect and affection they receive from the persons they actually directly interact with, then it might seem possible or even plausible that the whole climate change issue is a big hoax.
My main premise however is rather that humans do err, do make mistakes, and that the only way is to cross check and re-validate as much as possible. And that is how science works. Have you ever published a peer-reviewed scientific article, have you ever referred one? Have you ever gone over the scientific literature to figure out, for example the pH dependence of a specific process? Tried to sort partially conflicting results and match with your experiments?
Which brings me back to this graph, on top it has green bar marking a 41 kyear cycle, or 41'000 years in plain English. The x-axis labels for this period indicate a range from about 1.2 and 2.6 million years, or about 1.4 million years as a duration, in plain English 1'400'000 years. It does not take an advanced degree to see hat these two number do not match. Maybe you quoted the graph out of context, but taken on its own, such an error does not really instill credibility upon its creators.
Why do we have two articles pretending to care about it?
2) Also getting technical here - Pointing out that water vapor functions as a greenhouse gas in an effort to dismiss the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is ridiculous since our planet is awash in water and the content of water vapor in our atmosphere is limited by its saturation point and stays essentially constant, whereas CO2 has no such limit, is rising, and is therefore the object of concern.
Wrong, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas, fraudulent climate models depend on the premise that an increase in CO2 although insignificantly raising temperature, it will in turn increase the concentration of water vapor, and thereby further raise temperature, being the primary contriuter to the greenhouse effect; however this misguided assumption produces a positive feedback loop, which if true would have created a run-away greenhouse effect millennium ago, which obviously hadn't occurred, as CO2 concentrations had been several times higher than they are today. In fact CO2 concentration can not grow unbounded, as the worlds oceans stores the bulk of the planet's CO2 in buffered solution with calcium carbonate, which itself is sensitive to temperature, where higher temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 and lower temperatures to increase it; thereby in natural balance with global temperature and plant life, as climate cools and there is less plant life, the oceans tend to absorb and store CO2, as the earth warms, seemingly most strongly correlated with solar activity, the oceans tend to release CO2 from solution as likely correspondingly required by plant life. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 200ppm is only marginally able to support robust plant life; all honest indications are that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is most likely the result of increasing global temperature due to solar cycles as we recover from the most recent mini-ice age not the other way round. Any who have been involved in scientific or economic research for that matter know there is a bias in funding sources which tend to produce similarly biased research results; although not universally true, it's certainly prevalent.
I'm pretty sure that in the long term, abolishment of slavery and pushing equal rights has earned business a lot more than it has cost.
I agree that gradual change is to be preferred over revolution when it comes to economical interests, but no change or too slow change can be just as costly.
The problem is too many businesses today are looking at only short term profits and loosing sight of the long term. This is the reason the world economic system is in the shambles it is in--too much focus on quarterly profits with little to no eye on the long term results.
Wrong, CO2 is a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas, fraudulent climate models depend on the premise that an increase in CO2 although insignificantly raising temperature, it will in turn increase the concentration of water vapor, and thereby further raise temperature, being the primary contriuter to the greenhouse effect; however this misguided assumption produces a positive feedback loop, which if true would have created a run-away greenhouse effect millennium ago, which obviously hadn't occurred, as CO2 concentrations had been several times higher than they are today. In fact CO2 concentration can not grow unbounded, as the worlds oceans stores the bulk of the planet's CO2 in buffered solution with calcium carbonate, which itself is sensitive to temperature, where higher temperatures reduce the solubility of CO2 and lower temperatures to increase it; thereby in natural balance with global temperature and plant life, as climate cools and there is less plant life, the oceans tend to absorb and store CO2, as the earth warms, seemingly most strongly correlated with solar activity, the oceans tend to release CO2 from solution as likely correspondingly required by plant life. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 200ppm is only marginally able to support robust plant life; all honest indications are that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is most likely the result of increasing global temperature due to solar cycles as we recover from the most recent mini-ice age not the other way round. Any who have been involved in scientific or economic research for that matter know there is a bias in funding sources which tend to produce similarly biased research results; although not universally true, it's certainly prevalent.
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.
Actually, as you know, I mentioned that in a different vein and in response to a different poster. So you brought it up when you tried, pathetically, to apply it to this argument. But again that's your faulty logic.
Actually I'm out of town and on a spotty wifi connection, but if it doesn't surprise me that you expect me to read a 250 page document before addressing anything I say. It's a basic tactic of "people like yourself."
Now does that make her more qualified than other men and women who have PhDs in Meteorology and who are actually active in the field? (Simpson, has not authored a peer reviewed paper for several years, although she has written opinion pieces an blogged.) Or does it just make her more qualified than climatologists and paleoclimatologist who actually work in the field of climate change? (She's a respected meteorologist and cloud expert.)
As I've said, I pretty familiar with the literature and what they really point to are disagreements and discrepancies in the nature of climate change, not a refutation of it. As I said, that's normal for scientific papers. Its sort of like how scientists still are arguing over how evolution works, punctuated equilibrium versus gradual change, etc. This doesn't mean they disagree that evolution is occuring, just the mechanics of the process.
It's a "tactic" to use the words you used back against you? Ok, well, yeah, I did, guilty as charged.
I asked you to look at page 2 of said document but you'd know that if you had, ya know, actually read my post. You can read all of it if you want but there's more than enough information on page 2 to throw a wrench into the system. So, there's "people like myself" telling you to read but just one page - I guess that's too much to ask from "people like yourself."
I never said she was more qualified that anyone else - I'm saying that these scientists that disagree aren't idiots with BS (not Bachelor of Science, the other "BS") degrees - they are exceptionally intelligent people and even more so in their particular field of study so their research should be held in the same regard as other scientists (there are plenty of meteorologists on the pro-side but you don't disregard them because they are meteorologists do you?) but because you don't agree with them you choose not to - whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Many of the dissenters still agree that the earth is getting warmer but to say that 1) it's because of man and, more importantly 2) that the temperature increase currently projected by the new studies (less than .5 degrees C per century) is anything for us to be worried about. That's really the issue here - if the earth is warming and there's nothing we can do about it what exactly is the point of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars "fixing" something that we have no control over? It's a fundamental human trait that we think we can control everything but something are, in all actuality, beyond our control. And even beyond that it's been found that a warmer earth can actually be beneficial to many, many things so who's to say those benefits outweigh whatever realistic consequences there are (note the term realistic - I'm not talking about the Day after Tomorrow - entertaining movie for sure but realistic? About as realistic as transformers...)
Maybe Apple should get off their political high horse. I love their products, and they have a right to their opinion. Just don't support things that are going to raise our taxes, because then we won't be able to buy your products.
Didn't we call this problem global warming 6 months or so ago......since we have had mild summers and an early winter in most places its now called global climate change. Maybe we need more carbon to warm things up So basically we change the name because we obviously don't have any clue whats going on. .....I mean come on, these scientist suggested putting ash in the air in the 70's to avoid another ice age. I mean seriously, they can't even accurately predict next weeks weather, but they can predict the overall climate of the earth changing.
Maybe Apple should get off their political high horse. I love their products, and they have a right to their opinion. Just don't support things that are going to raise our taxes, because then we won't be able to buy your products.
Good First Post!
Go Navy
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.
Indeed, pws and several others here are good examples of a little knowledge being more dangerous than none.
I'll leave it at that.
My main premise however is rather that humans do err, do make mistakes, and that the only way is to cross check and re-validate as much as possible. And that is how science works. Have you ever published a peer-reviewed scientific article, have you ever referred one? Have you ever gone over the scientific literature to figure out, for example the pH dependence of a specific process? Tried to sort partially conflicting results and match with your experiments?
Not personally, but my wife is an academic and writes, publishes and reviews papers in hard science based journals. Are you asking because you need some pointers? I'm sure she would be willing to help you with any difficulties you are having.
She picks apart papers by Climatologists for sport.
Which brings me back to this graph, on top it has green bar marking a 41 kyear cycle, or 41'000 years in plain English. The x-axis labels for this period indicate a range from about 1.2 and 2.6 million years, or about 1.4 million years as a duration, in plain English 1'400'000 years. It does not take an advanced degree to see hat these two number do not match. Maybe you quoted the graph out of context, but taken on its own, such an error does not really instill credibility upon its creators.
The graph is from a Wikipedia article. If you believe it to be grossly erroneous, you are at liberty to edit the entry under which it appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologi...erature_record
If you look at that article, you may notice further below the graph I included, a more extensive one titled "Temperature of Planet Earth" which the graph in question appears to be a subset of, flipped on the X axis.
However, most climatologists would assert your understanding/explanation as "wrong", promulgated by denialist Lindzen. Contrasting and detailed explanations here, here, and here for those who are interested in this complex topic.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, pws and several others here are good examples of a little knowledge being more dangerous than none.
I'll leave it at that.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.