Interesting that you bring up that Chinese video. China has absolutely no intention of following any Western initiatives for cleaner energy. Along with China, India will become one the world's most polluting economies. You think pressure from the West will influence the totalitarian government of China to "think green?" Also funny is how organizations like Greenpeace seem to ignore China, Russia, Iran, and all the other totalitarian governments who would execute or imprison them if they showed up in those regions.
They may not move as fast as you like -- since, as a poorer country, they have to balance wealth creation versus the environment, something the West did not have to do -- but they're doing more far-reaching things than you know, or arguably, even the US.
Incidentally, please don't conflate India and China on the topic of climate change: Indian emissions amount to a small fraction of Chinese (or US) emissions.
I know I know, but you have to remember he is more knowledgeable than 99% of scientists ...
Radical liberalism and extremist ideology trumps science and facts, even for many scientists. Their ideology comes before any facts or actual science.
The latest liberal super scientist and global warming alarmist to have been busted for fabricating and making up their own facts and evidence is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Interesting that you bring up that Chinese video. China has absolutely no intention of following any Western initiatives for cleaner energy. Along with China, India will become one the world's most polluting economies. You think pressure from the West will influence the totalitarian government of China to "think green?" Also funny is how organizations like Greenpeace seem to ignore China, Russia, Iran, and all the other totalitarian governments who would execute or imprison them if they showed up in those regions.
You say it's funny that they avoid oppressive governments like it's a win in favor of the side trying to dismiss climate change. I don't think it's their aim to become martyrs for their cause. The best they can do is to bring it to the public's attention where they have the freedom to do that. Some of the actions these type of organisations take is damaging to businesses. A year ago activists blocked a 40,000 tonne coal shipment to a coal plant with the intention of shutting the plant down and this year got away with a fairly small fine:
[VIDEO]
The suggestions in the video are quite silly. One guy there says if it's a problem then lets pollute as much as possible, we'll see the effects of it and free market competition will sort it all out. First and foremost what people try to change is that way of thinking - the idea that it's ok to not consider anyone else but your own profit and your own success and if there's a mess, let someone else clean it up.
Every other scientific hysteria had been contrived to put in place a political agenda. Why should this one be any different?
It's a fact that fossil fuel reserves will run out and the estimates are around 50-100 years from now. Estimates of rising sea levels are in a similar timeframe:
Some groups have difficulty giving any importance to things that affect other people like future generations and so preparing for events 100 years from now today might be described as 'hysterical' but having a dependable source of energy is going to be necessary and renewable energy is the most sustainable. The clue is in the title renewable energy vs depleting energy.
There's no reason to be against moving to renewable energy unless people are heavily invested in companies that generate revenue from fossil fuels or just want to take an opposing side to the people in favor of it but in those cases, people aren't being objective. Nobody suggests we should switch from electric portable devices to fossil fuel and yet some people don't like the idea of moving cars from fossil fuel to electric. Electric is safer for one thing:
People in third world countries are not "ignorant" nor do they lack "common sense".
Sure they are. The uneducated are ignorant. The people who cling to extremist, primitive religions are ignorant. The people who refuse to wear condoms in certain parts of the third world, in countries where AIDS is running rampant are both ignorant and stupid. And also, killing western health care workers who are there to help those silly people is quite ignorant and counter productive.
You say it's funny that they avoid oppressive governments like it's a win in favor of the side trying to dismiss climate change. I don't think it's their aim to become martyrs for their cause. The best they can do is to bring it to the public's attention where they have the freedom to do that. Some of the actions these type of organisations take is damaging to businesses. A year ago activists blocked a 40,000 tonne coal shipment to a coal plant with the intention of shutting the plant down and this year got away with a fairly small fine:
The suggestions in the video are quite silly. One guy there says if it's a problem then lets pollute as much as possible, we'll see the effects of it and free market competition will sort it all out. First and foremost what people try to change is that way of thinking - the idea that it's ok to not consider anyone else but your own profit and your own success and if there's a mess, let someone else clean it up.
It's a fact that fossil fuel reserves will run out and the estimates are around 50-100 years from now. Estimates of rising sea levels are in a similar timeframe:
Some groups have difficulty giving any importance to things that affect other people like future generations and so preparing for events 100 years from now today might be described as 'hysterical' but having a dependable source of energy is going to be necessary and renewable energy is the most sustainable. The clue is in the title renewable energy vs depleting energy.
There's no reason to be against moving to renewable energy unless people are heavily invested in companies that generate revenue from fossil fuels or just want to take an opposing side to the people in favor of it but in those cases, people aren't being objective. Nobody suggests we should switch from electric portable devices to fossil fuel and yet some people don't like the idea of moving cars from fossil fuel to electric. Electric is safer for one thing:
Those people that blocked the coal shipment this year should be in jail. It's ridiculous the prosecutor dropped all charges because he was sympathetic to their cause.
When you read some of the comments on this forum, you realise that we are indeed all truly &);;$&@... The selfishness of some people is truly astounding. If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
Are you insane?" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Apple makes the best devices around, and I look forward to buying a new iPad next month.
I can use Apple devices as much as I please, something that I have been doing for a very long time now. That doesn't mean that I will agree with Apple on every political issue that comes up.
Every time I start to like him he goes and says something ignorant. There is nothing wrong with trying to do better with our climate.
The problem is the assumption that the scientist have a handle on what is happening with the climate. They clearly don't and as such building policy around shoddy science is just bad politics.
If people wanted to do better for their environment (not the climate) there are real issues to justify curtailing the use of coal. For example acid rain, Mercury contamination and other ills that are the result of heavy coal usage. CO2 pollution though is BS because we simply haven't moved the percentage enough to to demonstrate any real impact on the climate. It doesn't help that these so called scientist consider the Suns impact to be a constant.
In a nut shell the climate change crowd really doesn't give a damn about the climate, it is rather a political movement that is heavily weighted to the left.
Corporations pay big money to tell you to believe science and evidence don't matter.
Big corporations have nothing to do with it. The data simply isn't conclusive even after unethical attempts to make it conclusive. For example the whining about the ice caps at the poles shrinking which has been shown to be an unrealistic interpretation of the data. The data clearly shows that ICE coverage has grown around the world.
After all, those corporations are run by rich people who want to be richer, right now, by the easiest path.
Screw the corporations learn to read and understand the data yourself. The more you look into this crap with an open eye the more you will realize that there are many unanswered questions and a lot of unethical behavior.
Climate change deniers are like those people who steadfastly held on to the geocentric view of the universe until the very end. The studies are there and the evidence is strong and undeniable.
Have you yourself looked into this so called evidence. If you had, and you have any sort of mental capacity, you would realize that there is much to be questioned. The evidence in reality is very weak, in some cases fabricated and in others at odds with the latest unbiased research.
Unfortunately, the stakes are much higher now and the future of the planet hangs in the balance.
That is complete bullshit! Even if the worst projections became a reality there would be no real harm to the planet and might actually allow the planet to better support life. However global warming isn't happening and there is no proof as to what has caused some of the so called proofs of global warming.
If we didn't accept heliocentrism, humanity can still live on. If we don't do anything about climate change, then humanity will probably become extinct.
If the planet was really warming up as suggested by the global warming freaks, it could be one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. Think about it a bit, the planet has been warming up since the last ICE age except for a few regressions here or there. As that has happened humanity has flourished.
Have you yourself looked into this so called evidence. If you had, and you have any sort of mental capacity, you would realize that there is much to be questioned. The evidence in reality is very weak, in some cases fabricated and in others at odds with the latest unbiased research.
That is complete bullshit! Even if the worst projections became a reality there would be no real harm to the planet and might actually allow the planet to better support life. However global warming isn't happening and there is no proof as to what has caused some of the so called proofs of global warming.
If the planet was really warming up as suggested by the global warming freaks, it could be one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. Think about it a bit, the planet has been warming up since the last ICE age except for a few regressions here or there. As that has happened humanity has flourished.
show us don't tell us... 99% of scientists agree. You can't get 99% of anyone to agree on anything. Would I rather listen to multiple doctors same assessment and get treatment from them or would I rather pull off the Steven Jobs method of health treatment for a condition and listen to some non-sense from some libertarians who have no knowledge of the subject at the level they would need to even be qualified to speak about the science at all. We see how that worked out for Steve.
Comments
Why?
So why be worried that one would happen?
Interesting that you bring up that Chinese video. China has absolutely no intention of following any Western initiatives for cleaner energy. Along with China, India will become one the world's most polluting economies. You think pressure from the West will influence the totalitarian government of China to "think green?" Also funny is how organizations like Greenpeace seem to ignore China, Russia, Iran, and all the other totalitarian governments who would execute or imprison them if they showed up in those regions.
Perhaps you should stick to topics where you don't make grand statements without knowing the facts. China will likely have a cap and trade system in place within a couple of years. They have been experimenting with it since June 2013 in six to eight regional exchanges. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/business/international/china-plans-a-market-for-carbon-permits.html?_r=0
China's 12th five year plan is committed to spending nearly $550B on environmental issues before end of 2015, a rather stunning sum. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-21/china-seeks-536-billion-of-investments-to-protect-environment.html ; (In fact, what makes this sort of a sweeping commitment possible, for better or worse, is that they're a totalitarian government.)
They may not move as fast as you like -- since, as a poorer country, they have to balance wealth creation versus the environment, something the West did not have to do -- but they're doing more far-reaching things than you know, or arguably, even the US.
Incidentally, please don't conflate India and China on the topic of climate change: Indian emissions amount to a small fraction of Chinese (or US) emissions.
I know I know, but you have to remember he is more knowledgeable than 99% of scientists ...
Radical liberalism and extremist ideology trumps science and facts, even for many scientists. Their ideology comes before any facts or actual science.
The latest liberal super scientist and global warming alarmist to have been busted for fabricating and making up their own facts and evidence is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
You say it's funny that they avoid oppressive governments like it's a win in favor of the side trying to dismiss climate change. I don't think it's their aim to become martyrs for their cause. The best they can do is to bring it to the public's attention where they have the freedom to do that. Some of the actions these type of organisations take is damaging to businesses. A year ago activists blocked a 40,000 tonne coal shipment to a coal plant with the intention of shutting the plant down and this year got away with a fairly small fine:
[VIDEO]
The suggestions in the video are quite silly. One guy there says if it's a problem then lets pollute as much as possible, we'll see the effects of it and free market competition will sort it all out. First and foremost what people try to change is that way of thinking - the idea that it's ok to not consider anyone else but your own profit and your own success and if there's a mess, let someone else clean it up.
It's a fact that fossil fuel reserves will run out and the estimates are around 50-100 years from now. Estimates of rising sea levels are in a similar timeframe:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/04/experts-ipcc-underestimated-sea-level-rise
Some groups have difficulty giving any importance to things that affect other people like future generations and so preparing for events 100 years from now today might be described as 'hysterical' but having a dependable source of energy is going to be necessary and renewable energy is the most sustainable. The clue is in the title renewable energy vs depleting energy.
There's no reason to be against moving to renewable energy unless people are heavily invested in companies that generate revenue from fossil fuels or just want to take an opposing side to the people in favor of it but in those cases, people aren't being objective. Nobody suggests we should switch from electric portable devices to fossil fuel and yet some people don't like the idea of moving cars from fossil fuel to electric. Electric is safer for one thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/new-jersey-gas-explosion-one-dead-and-10-homes-destroyed-after-line-cut
[VIDEO]
People in third world countries are not "ignorant" nor do they lack "common sense".
Sure they are. The uneducated are ignorant. The people who cling to extremist, primitive religions are ignorant. The people who refuse to wear condoms in certain parts of the third world, in countries where AIDS is running rampant are both ignorant and stupid. And also, killing western health care workers who are there to help those silly people is quite ignorant and counter productive.
You say it's funny that they avoid oppressive governments like it's a win in favor of the side trying to dismiss climate change. I don't think it's their aim to become martyrs for their cause. The best they can do is to bring it to the public's attention where they have the freedom to do that. Some of the actions these type of organisations take is damaging to businesses. A year ago activists blocked a 40,000 tonne coal shipment to a coal plant with the intention of shutting the plant down and this year got away with a fairly small fine:
The suggestions in the video are quite silly. One guy there says if it's a problem then lets pollute as much as possible, we'll see the effects of it and free market competition will sort it all out. First and foremost what people try to change is that way of thinking - the idea that it's ok to not consider anyone else but your own profit and your own success and if there's a mess, let someone else clean it up.
It's a fact that fossil fuel reserves will run out and the estimates are around 50-100 years from now. Estimates of rising sea levels are in a similar timeframe:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/04/experts-ipcc-underestimated-sea-level-rise
Some groups have difficulty giving any importance to things that affect other people like future generations and so preparing for events 100 years from now today might be described as 'hysterical' but having a dependable source of energy is going to be necessary and renewable energy is the most sustainable. The clue is in the title renewable energy vs depleting energy.
There's no reason to be against moving to renewable energy unless people are heavily invested in companies that generate revenue from fossil fuels or just want to take an opposing side to the people in favor of it but in those cases, people aren't being objective. Nobody suggests we should switch from electric portable devices to fossil fuel and yet some people don't like the idea of moving cars from fossil fuel to electric. Electric is safer for one thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/new-jersey-gas-explosion-one-dead-and-10-homes-destroyed-after-line-cut
Those people that blocked the coal shipment this year should be in jail. It's ridiculous the prosecutor dropped all charges because he was sympathetic to their cause.
After all, those corporations are run by rich people who want to be richer, right now, by the easiest path.
The selfishness of some people is truly astounding.
If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
If you don't like what Tim Cook is doing and stands for, then sell your shares, stop buying Apple and go elsewhere.
Are you insane?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Apple makes the best devices around, and I look forward to buying a new iPad next month.
I can use Apple devices as much as I please, something that I have been doing for a very long time now. That doesn't mean that I will agree with Apple on every political issue that comes up.
Kool!!! We are going to reverse something that isn't happening. Apple is way ahead of it's time.
Escalated fast, and predictably.
The problem is the assumption that the scientist have a handle on what is happening with the climate. They clearly don't and as such building policy around shoddy science is just bad politics.
If people wanted to do better for their environment (not the climate) there are real issues to justify curtailing the use of coal. For example acid rain, Mercury contamination and other ills that are the result of heavy coal usage. CO2 pollution though is BS because we simply haven't moved the percentage enough to to demonstrate any real impact on the climate. It doesn't help that these so called scientist consider the Suns impact to be a constant.
In a nut shell the climate change crowd really doesn't give a damn about the climate, it is rather a political movement that is heavily weighted to the left.
Screw the corporations learn to read and understand the data yourself. The more you look into this crap with an open eye the more you will realize that there are many unanswered questions and a lot of unethical behavior.
I appreciate the visionary stuff, but how about we just focus on getting products out of beta before release.... (iOS8)
Kool!!! We are going to reverse something that isn't happening. Apple is way ahead of it's time.
I'm w this guy...
I know I know, but you have to remember he is more knowledgeable than 99% of scientists ...
People with no credentials on the subject trying to question people who work and study science their whole life.... is just AMAZING!
Have you yourself looked into this so called evidence. If you had, and you have any sort of mental capacity, you would realize that there is much to be questioned. The evidence in reality is very weak, in some cases fabricated and in others at odds with the latest unbiased research.
That is complete bullshit! Even if the worst projections became a reality there would be no real harm to the planet and might actually allow the planet to better support life. However global warming isn't happening and there is no proof as to what has caused some of the so called proofs of global warming.
If the planet was really warming up as suggested by the global warming freaks, it could be one of the best things to ever happen to humanity. Think about it a bit, the planet has been warming up since the last ICE age except for a few regressions here or there. As that has happened humanity has flourished.
show us don't tell us... 99% of scientists agree. You can't get 99% of anyone to agree on anything. Would I rather listen to multiple doctors same assessment and get treatment from them or would I rather pull off the Steven Jobs method of health treatment for a condition and listen to some non-sense from some libertarians who have no knowledge of the subject at the level they would need to even be qualified to speak about the science at all. We see how that worked out for Steve.
Which tells you that the figure you are quoting is incorrect on the face of it. Research into the topic proves this.
Many of posters here on AI misunderstand. Peer review trumps you and me. Best intellectual innovation ever.