Thanks, good reading. I guess 2007 was a particularly bad year for ice, when most of the dire predictions were made. It is always unsettling when the world as we know it seems to be headed for destruction. Of course that destruction would only be our civilization not the planet, but it is still pretty obvious to most people that nature is in retreat due to the onslaught of the human race be it global warming or just good old fashion deforestation.
Oh crap, duck and cover, you linked to the heartland institute - there's a contigent on here that is going to massacre you for that...
When it comes to information (offering new, relevant, untested evidence) versus disinformation, more historically credible sources, i.e., non-partisan track record, should be cited instead of Heartland.
Because I think all the scientists who have reviewed the data and come to more moderate conclusion of "we need to study this more" have a more realistic approach. Their "science" is just as good as the "science" of the people you believe so who's in the right?
So, it's about their approach, more than the science? How can the "science" of one group be just as good as the "science" of another group and yet they reach contradictory positions based on (presumably) the same data? Are there multiple scientific truths? I think not. Also, your thoughts on how scientists deal with data that doesn't fit theories, is naively simplistic, and, more importantly, doesn't reflect the actual practice or history of science.
As has been pointed out by any number of people on this forum alone, none of the sources of information you cite has any credibility in the real scientific community. (As opposed to the alternate universe "scientific" community where anyone who publishes anything on a science related topic qualifies as a respected scientist, in any and all fields.) Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelming consensus in the climatology community that the threat of global warming is real. Contrary to what you believe, most of what you think are legitimate scientific articles are rubbish. The only question in my mind is whether you are intent on denying reality out of a basic inability to understand, out of fear, out of economic self-interest, or for some other reason. Clearly, you have no rational basis for your beliefs, despite your belief to the contrary, but it would be interesting to know what exactly does motivate you. Unfortunately, I think you lack the self-awareness to provide the answer yourself.
Fortunately, however, science-denial is no longer the order of the day in the White House. Fortunately, you are not a policy maker. Fortunately, the voices of reputable scientists are now being listened to in Washington, rather than ignored.
Many companies left before Apple so it's not like Apple is a trailblazer here (as noted in the article)
Obviously your eyes are better than mine as I cannot find the word "trailblazer" used at anytime in the article. In fact, the article stated that: " Preceding Apple in departure were Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. Nike also withdrew from the chamber's board, but retained its membership."
So , either your reading and comprehension skills need upgrading or you have an agenda that we "are not aware of". Care to elaborate? \
So what if I gave you data from University professor and scholars around the world? Would you dismiss it instantly if it didn't go with your hypothesis?
Would these be the same "University professor and scholars around the world" that still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
I find it impossible to be enlightened by A WORK OF FICTION, entertained, maybe ... but certainly not enlightened.
Interesting implicit perspective you have there - everyone who agrees with your hypothesis is using science and everyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is using pseudo science. Since you have been delegated the authority to declare what is science and what is pseudo science, I suppose that it your prerogative.
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming.
The consequence is that we have to face the fact that the only meaningful direct measurements of temperature and temperature trends we have on a global scale have only come into existence in the age of modern weather & climate satellites over the past couple of decades or so. Since it is also well known that there are natural cyclical effects on global temperature of a similar time scale (such as the solar cycle and the Pacific ocean thermal cycle), it is simply impossible to determine at this time by direct measurement whether or not we are observing normal temperature fluctuations of a cyclical nature or a long term trend. At present global warming is only a conjecture that is supported by indirect and inconclusive evidence at best.
Of course I'm sure you're now going to tell me Im full of pseudo science and expose me for a heretic since I dared to question your dogma.
Don't know about the placement of weather stations, but the disappearance of the polar ice caps, which is documented by photos and satellite images, is enough to cause me concern. Not you tho', huh?
They should all be read so one can determine the best course of action because the way we are heading today is a pending disaster. The market manipulations are robbing us all.
Please tell me that you're kidding. Why on earth would we decide the best course of action on works of fiction and the study of nutjobs? We might as well base our actions on the movie: The Day After Tomorrow. I agree there is a certain amount of market manipulation, always has been, always will be, but what is the connection with that and climate change?
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
IMHO it's better to be "sucked dry" of money than to be "sucked dry" of breathable air? Cleaning up our environment is obviously going to cost us all money. But take a look around, can anyone honestly say that our environment is better today than it was 100 years ago? Let's keep our eye on the ball and not accept anything less than clean air and clean water. Shouldn't that be the goal for all of us?
Please tell me that you're kidding. Why on earth would we decide the best course of action on works of fiction and the study of nutjobs? We might as well base our actions on the movie: The Day After Tomorrow. I agree there is a certain amount of market manipulation, always has been, always will be, but what is the connection with that and climate change?
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
The better you understand them the better you can deal with them. In terms of politics climate change is a game changer. It forces greater dependance on government and consiquently more loss of your wealth to those in control. Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
Based on the last 400,000 years we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary.
I'll have to take your word for it as I wasn't around 400,000 years ago, but I do know one thing. If our air keeps getting dirtier and dirtier none of us will be able to "see" anything.
For a point of reference, I live in Vancouver, BC and can remember the first time I saw evidence of the smog that was always mentioned in conjunction with L.A. While driving back into the city from about 25 miles out you could see a very thin line of smog above the city. That "thin line " has grown to about 1000 feet thick and only lessens on the weekend when a lot of cars are not commuting back and forth to work. I'm sure that this is a man made problem, unless cars have been around longer than I give them credit for.
There "may" be many reasons for global warming, but to take man out of the equation would be a serious mistake.
I read it and find that the article does no such thing ("shown to be faulty"). All of the article's points, and be clear that this is an agenda-site, not a scientific site, have been debunked and/or discredited by legitimate climate scientists repeatedly. An untruth, no matter how often repeated, remains untrue until proven otherwise (with new evidence). For them to posit such a staggering lack of understanding of the basic science of climate change, as well as old discredited claims, should immediately disqualify anyone who advances it from a debate.
Again, if you are in possession of new evidence on any of the areas of climate science, take it to the appropriate place for review.
IMHO it's better to be "sucked dry" of money than to be "sucked dry" of breathable air? Cleaning up our environment is obviously going to cost us all money. But take a look around, can anyone honestly say that our environment is better today than it was 100 years ago? Let's keep our eye on the ball and not accept anything less than clean air and clean water. Shouldn't that be the goal for all of us?
As countries develop people tend to care more about their surroundings. Ask my dad about swimming with the raw sewage in the rivers in Illinois when he was growing up. What you may think of as bad is a lot better than 75 years ago overall. You really don't want to go back to heating with coal like in England in the 1800's.
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
The better you understand them the better you can deal with them. In terms of politics climate change is a game changer. It forces greater dependance on government and consiquently more loss of your wealth to those in control. Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
And neither has less government ... perhaps a BALANCED government is what we should strive for.
...Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
On a cautionary note, don't get suckered with junk economics, a variant of climate change denial. There's more to it (also read the related posts by Krugman).
It is often stated that "Economic estimates of the costs of cutting CO2 emissions are huge." In an absolute sense, this is true, it would be a lot of dollars, but it comes down to a few percent of GDP, which, in an economic system that grows by a few percent per year, just puts off the attainment of a given amount of wealth by a few years. And anyway, business-as-usual will always argue that the alternative would be catastrophic to our economic well being.
I think the intelligent, accurate argument would be that in favor of better government, not "more" government, for timely and effective solutions to acknowledged problems.
As countries develop people tend to care more about their surroundings. Ask my dad about swimming with the raw sewage in the rivers in Illinois when he was growing up. What you may think of as bad is a lot better than 75 years ago overall. You really don't want to go back to heating with coal like in England in the 1800's.
That may have been true of Illinois but my point was, although not clearly stated, the sheer numbers of earth's citizens then as opposed to now clearly had a beneficial effect on climate and pollution.
I am a big fan of Apple products, but I find this move to quit the US Chamber of Commerce by Apple a bogus, hypocritical, publicity stunt. What exactly is Apple's "carbon footprint" in the United States? Not very much for a company of their size. Apple has moved or outsourced all of it's manufacturing overseas - a lot of it to China, a country that does not have the greatest environmental record. What does Apple have here in the US? Some office buildings in Cupertino and a few other locations around the country, along with all the Apple stores. When I see Apple getting tough on its suppliers and manufacturing partners about how they treat the environment and how they treat their employees, then I might respect Apple for "taking a stance on the environment".
And being linked with Nike is no big deal. They do the same thing. All their products are made outside the USA, and, they have a HORRIBLE record for how employees are treated at their manufacturing plants.
You can believe in global warming or not - you can go back and forth with the cut&paste and name calling, but dig beneath the surface and Apple looks pretty lame on this.
Comments
Global Warming "science" has shown to be faulty, especially that presented by the U.N.:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=262
Apple had best get a clue before listening to Al Gore:
http://www.heartland.org/full/26066/...l_Warming.html
Oh crap, duck and cover, you linked to the heartland institute - there's a contigent on here that is going to massacre you for that...
Whoops...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/1...not-shrinking/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...83-601,00.html
Thanks, good reading. I guess 2007 was a particularly bad year for ice, when most of the dire predictions were made. It is always unsettling when the world as we know it seems to be headed for destruction. Of course that destruction would only be our civilization not the planet, but it is still pretty obvious to most people that nature is in retreat due to the onslaught of the human race be it global warming or just good old fashion deforestation.
Oh crap, duck and cover, you linked to the heartland institute - there's a contigent on here that is going to massacre you for that...
If you had any interest in facts, you would massacre him yourself.
Oh crap, duck and cover, you linked to the heartland institute - there's a contigent on here that is going to massacre you for that...
When it comes to information (offering new, relevant, untested evidence) versus disinformation, more historically credible sources, i.e., non-partisan track record, should be cited instead of Heartland.
Because I think all the scientists who have reviewed the data and come to more moderate conclusion of "we need to study this more" have a more realistic approach. Their "science" is just as good as the "science" of the people you believe so who's in the right?
So, it's about their approach, more than the science? How can the "science" of one group be just as good as the "science" of another group and yet they reach contradictory positions based on (presumably) the same data? Are there multiple scientific truths? I think not. Also, your thoughts on how scientists deal with data that doesn't fit theories, is naively simplistic, and, more importantly, doesn't reflect the actual practice or history of science.
As has been pointed out by any number of people on this forum alone, none of the sources of information you cite has any credibility in the real scientific community. (As opposed to the alternate universe "scientific" community where anyone who publishes anything on a science related topic qualifies as a respected scientist, in any and all fields.) Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelming consensus in the climatology community that the threat of global warming is real. Contrary to what you believe, most of what you think are legitimate scientific articles are rubbish. The only question in my mind is whether you are intent on denying reality out of a basic inability to understand, out of fear, out of economic self-interest, or for some other reason. Clearly, you have no rational basis for your beliefs, despite your belief to the contrary, but it would be interesting to know what exactly does motivate you. Unfortunately, I think you lack the self-awareness to provide the answer yourself.
Fortunately, however, science-denial is no longer the order of the day in the White House. Fortunately, you are not a policy maker. Fortunately, the voices of reputable scientists are now being listened to in Washington, rather than ignored.
Many companies left before Apple so it's not like Apple is a trailblazer here (as noted in the article)
Obviously your eyes are better than mine as I cannot find the word "trailblazer" used at anytime in the article. In fact, the article stated that: " Preceding Apple in departure were Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon. Nike also withdrew from the chamber's board, but retained its membership."
So , either your reading and comprehension skills need upgrading or you have an agenda that we "are not aware of". Care to elaborate?
So what if I gave you data from University professor and scholars around the world? Would you dismiss it instantly if it didn't go with your hypothesis?
Would these be the same "University professor and scholars around the world" that still claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
I find it impossible to be enlightened by A WORK OF FICTION, entertained, maybe ... but certainly not enlightened.
I find it impossible to be enlightened by A WORK OF FICTION, entertained, maybe ... but certainly not enlightened.
Well, Rand is such a terrible writer that it's impossible to be entertained, either.
Guess you'd better add the BBC to your hate list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Interesting implicit perspective you have there - everyone who agrees with your hypothesis is using science and everyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is using pseudo science. Since you have been delegated the authority to declare what is science and what is pseudo science, I suppose that it your prerogative.
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming.
The consequence is that we have to face the fact that the only meaningful direct measurements of temperature and temperature trends we have on a global scale have only come into existence in the age of modern weather & climate satellites over the past couple of decades or so. Since it is also well known that there are natural cyclical effects on global temperature of a similar time scale (such as the solar cycle and the Pacific ocean thermal cycle), it is simply impossible to determine at this time by direct measurement whether or not we are observing normal temperature fluctuations of a cyclical nature or a long term trend. At present global warming is only a conjecture that is supported by indirect and inconclusive evidence at best.
Of course I'm sure you're now going to tell me Im full of pseudo science and expose me for a heretic since I dared to question your dogma.
Don't know about the placement of weather stations, but the disappearance of the polar ice caps, which is documented by photos and satellite images, is enough to cause me concern. Not you tho', huh?
They should all be read so one can determine the best course of action because the way we are heading today is a pending disaster. The market manipulations are robbing us all.
Please tell me that you're kidding. Why on earth would we decide the best course of action on works of fiction and the study of nutjobs? We might as well base our actions on the movie: The Day After Tomorrow. I agree there is a certain amount of market manipulation, always has been, always will be, but what is the connection with that and climate change?
The only thing I see coming out of this fraud called global warming is corporations and Al Gore will get rich....the rest of us will be sucked dry. We are quickly being put back in to our place as peasents.
IMHO it's better to be "sucked dry" of money than to be "sucked dry" of breathable air? Cleaning up our environment is obviously going to cost us all money. But take a look around, can anyone honestly say that our environment is better today than it was 100 years ago? Let's keep our eye on the ball and not accept anything less than clean air and clean water. Shouldn't that be the goal for all of us?
Please tell me that you're kidding. Why on earth would we decide the best course of action on works of fiction and the study of nutjobs? We might as well base our actions on the movie: The Day After Tomorrow. I agree there is a certain amount of market manipulation, always has been, always will be, but what is the connection with that and climate change?
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
The better you understand them the better you can deal with them. In terms of politics climate change is a game changer. It forces greater dependance on government and consiquently more loss of your wealth to those in control. Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Based on the last 400,000 years we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary.
I'll have to take your word for it as I wasn't around 400,000 years ago, but I do know one thing. If our air keeps getting dirtier and dirtier none of us will be able to "see" anything.
For a point of reference, I live in Vancouver, BC and can remember the first time I saw evidence of the smog that was always mentioned in conjunction with L.A. While driving back into the city from about 25 miles out you could see a very thin line of smog above the city. That "thin line " has grown to about 1000 feet thick and only lessens on the weekend when a lot of cars are not commuting back and forth to work. I'm sure that this is a man made problem, unless cars have been around longer than I give them credit for.
There "may" be many reasons for global warming, but to take man out of the equation would be a serious mistake.
Global Warming "science" has shown to be faulty, especially that presented by the U.N.:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=262
I read it and find that the article does no such thing ("shown to be faulty"). All of the article's points, and be clear that this is an agenda-site, not a scientific site, have been debunked and/or discredited by legitimate climate scientists repeatedly. An untruth, no matter how often repeated, remains untrue until proven otherwise (with new evidence). For them to posit such a staggering lack of understanding of the basic science of climate change, as well as old discredited claims, should immediately disqualify anyone who advances it from a debate.
Again, if you are in possession of new evidence on any of the areas of climate science, take it to the appropriate place for review.
IMHO it's better to be "sucked dry" of money than to be "sucked dry" of breathable air? Cleaning up our environment is obviously going to cost us all money. But take a look around, can anyone honestly say that our environment is better today than it was 100 years ago? Let's keep our eye on the ball and not accept anything less than clean air and clean water. Shouldn't that be the goal for all of us?
As countries develop people tend to care more about their surroundings. Ask my dad about swimming with the raw sewage in the rivers in Illinois when he was growing up. What you may think of as bad is a lot better than 75 years ago overall. You really don't want to go back to heating with coal like in England in the 1800's.
Like it or not the "nutjobs" have a strong track record of getting to run the show....
The better you understand them the better you can deal with them. In terms of politics climate change is a game changer. It forces greater dependance on government and consiquently more loss of your wealth to those in control. Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
And neither has less government ... perhaps a BALANCED government is what we should strive for.
...Someone upstream in these comments stated that cap and trade would hardly cost anyone much. Don't know where they are, but where I'm at taxes, fees, etc. never go down and continue to rise above inflation. When all added up it's over 50% now. More government never solved anything.
On a cautionary note, don't get suckered with junk economics, a variant of climate change denial. There's more to it (also read the related posts by Krugman).
It is often stated that "Economic estimates of the costs of cutting CO2 emissions are huge." In an absolute sense, this is true, it would be a lot of dollars, but it comes down to a few percent of GDP, which, in an economic system that grows by a few percent per year, just puts off the attainment of a given amount of wealth by a few years. And anyway, business-as-usual will always argue that the alternative would be catastrophic to our economic well being.
I think the intelligent, accurate argument would be that in favor of better government, not "more" government, for timely and effective solutions to acknowledged problems.
As countries develop people tend to care more about their surroundings. Ask my dad about swimming with the raw sewage in the rivers in Illinois when he was growing up. What you may think of as bad is a lot better than 75 years ago overall. You really don't want to go back to heating with coal like in England in the 1800's.
That may have been true of Illinois but my point was, although not clearly stated, the sheer numbers of earth's citizens then as opposed to now clearly had a beneficial effect on climate and pollution.
And being linked with Nike is no big deal. They do the same thing. All their products are made outside the USA, and, they have a HORRIBLE record for how employees are treated at their manufacturing plants.
You can believe in global warming or not - you can go back and forth with the cut&paste and name calling, but dig beneath the surface and Apple looks pretty lame on this.