Statistically the world is getting warmer but how much of that is attributable to influences of man is debatable. The hilarious part is that these clowns think these pledges will actually make a difference. ( Actually most probably don't think that) It's all just for show. I'd wager 90 percent of the worlds 7 billion people are just trying to survive day to day. They could care less about their 'carbon footprint'. Maybe it trickles down before it's too late. Who knows. Sure sounds good to the granola crowd though.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Lisa Jackson did work for Obama and Cook is giving her more and more power. But yes crony capitalism sucks and it's amazing to me that so many liberals don't seem to have a problem with it.
Your consistently petty and childish partisanship is mind-numbing, to say the least. Maybe one day you'll be able to go beyond "liberals are bad" in your discussion skills and actually think critically about each issue, instead of your predictable knee-jerk quips.
Now after 30 years, this is the first thing that has indicated to me that Apple has lost its way.
Kowtowing to bad science. Global Warming was disproven in the 1980s, but it's great for stealing peoples money, which government loves to do.
Apple should stay out of it.
Whether you believe in the environmental impact with conventional power generation or not, the cost is lower going with alternatives. Don't know where you are getting "global warning was disproven in the 80's", as the only scientist saying this reportedly had some connection with the oil industry. Regardless, Apple isn't paying a premium for alternatives, but rather a lower rate.
Managed forestry is not the answer. Using recycled material is. Already wrote to Tim Cook about it. Anyone else?
Perfect packaging isn't necessary. Recycled materials can be just as nice, if different.
I'd prefer Apple buy more forests and manage them directly for their own recyclable uses. Keep the government out of it, at least at the "micro" level, as long as the big corporations are actually cleaning up their own act, so to speak. This effort along with renewable power (which Apple is already doing) should help hedge against any revival of the carbon credit scam of the 2000's.
The whole issue of climate change, CO2 emissions and consequences, global warming, etc ... is not as clear cut as people might want to think. Unfortunately the discussion has become a shouting fest between people with prepared cute answers. It is very political at this point. Those quoting science pick whatever article supports their side while ignoring articles which do not support their case.
One thing is clear. Go read the serious article on climate through time and you will see it is nowhere as straightforward as some might have you think.
The renewable energy goal is laudable. I doubt it will be found in those ghastly windmills that are ruining the landscape and for most countries the solar option is simply not practical at this time. The real proven technology is nuclear and it doesn't have a great reputation. Carbon based fuels will be with us for a long time and provide a way of moving the technology bar forward in the search for more advanced power sources. The current electric fad is all marketing. Even places such as Québec with massive hydro resources ( generally thought of as a renewable clean source of power) conveniently omit how they ruined a great deal of the province's north in order to obtain their precious resources.
This is yet another case of Apple claiming on a politically correct bandwagon. What a company.
Only human arrogance would lead people to claim that their activities are warming the planet.
Not pouring toxic sludge into a river is another matter entirely. Governments don't typically set up huge wealth transfer schemes on that issue.
I agree on the rivers etc. but it is not a different matter at all. Do you realize how thin this planet's atmosphere is? How fragile the balance of just the right / lucky amounts of various gases made it so that life (as we know it) exists? It's worth looking at photographs taken from space and actually see this tiny, thin layer contrast against the earth's edge and outer space. It's only then, if you check the amount of pollutant gases man has pumped into it since the dawn of the industrial revolution you can start to see that it is no different from a river in terms of man's ability to pollute it significantly. This isn't smog I refer too, that's bad enough, rather gases that produce the greenhouse effect that heat the oceans of the world over time. So many 'clever' politicians from the Tea Party stand outside their respective state houses in our winter, with snowballs, stating that this 'proves' global warming is a myth. I truly believe these folks are unaware or have forgotten there is a Southern hemisphere. At that very moment they stand there it is summer down under and is experiencing record breaking temperatures too. That Southern hemisphere also happens to have by far the majority of this planet's oceans.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's reality. I predict, by the time even the deniers have to admit it's true, they will be claiming 'OK it's true but God is doing it to punish mankind for ... (add your own crap here).'
The whole issue of climate change, CO2 emissions and consequences, global warming, etc ... is not as clear cut as people might want to think. Unfortunately the discussion has become a shouting fest between people with prepared cute answers. It is very political at this point. Those quoting science pick whatever article supports their side while ignoring articles which do not support their case.
One thing is clear. Go read the serious article on climate through time and you will see it is nowhere as straightforward as some might have you think.
The renewable energy goal is laudable. I doubt it will be found in those ghastly windmills that are ruining the landscape and for most countries the solar option is simply not practical at this time. The real proven technology is nuclear and it doesn't have a great reputation. Carbon based fuels will be with us for a long time and provide a way of moving the technology bar forward in the search for more advanced power sources. The current electric fad is all marketing. Even places such as Québec with massive hydro resources ( generally thought of as a renewable clean source of power) conveniently omit how they ruined a great deal of the province's north in order to obtain their precious resources.
This is yet another case of Apple claiming on a politically correct bandwagon. What a company.
99% of scientists disagree with you. Of course the The Heritage Foundation pays a few scientists to write the stuff you mention here aimed at those without any scientific training to try to win them over by sounding reasonable.
I have wasted a silly amount of time looking into the evidence for AGW, and I can say with confidence that it is 100% horse shit.
Don't get me wrong, I feel we could clean up here and there pragmatically, but nobody can pull the wool over my eyes regarding AGW that affects the climate to any degree that matters.
No one has proven climate change or changes are caused by humans. For liberals it was called global warming until everyone in the northern part of the US started getting an average of 100 inches of snow in the winter, now it's climate change.
If people that deny climate change are wrong and we follow that path and do nothing what are the consequences? If people that believe something needs to be done about climate change are wrong and we follow that path what are the consequences? Seems your argument (no climate change) has the best chance of having a negative effect on the planet.
Only human arrogance would lead people to claim that their activities are warming the planet.
Not pouring toxic sludge into a river is another matter entirely. Governments don't typically set up huge wealth transfer schemes on that issue.
Human activity is warming the planet! CO2 is increasing and 3-4% of CO2 emissions are caused by humans, and classic thermodynamics show that this results in a warming.
The question is not YES or NO, its is HOW MUCH! Science doesn't know, but most indications are that the answer is that very little is human caused!
What we read in the papers is politics, not science, and so is what Apple is doing!
99% of scientists disagree with you. Of course the The Heritage Foundation pays a few scientists to write the stuff you mention here aimed at those without any scientific training to try to win them over by sounding reasonable.
Where do you get that 99% figure? Moreover, let's be very careful when using the term scientist. You at least want to look at people published in serious peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic. I am not disputing the 99% figure. I just don't know what it means nor where it comes from. It is certainly a number that has been mentioned by many people.
If you can at the very least acknowledge the impact of, say, air pollution...
Two things.
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
If people that deny climate change are wrong and we follow that path and do nothing what are the consequences? If people that believe something needs to be done about climate change are wrong and we follow that path what are the consequences? Seems your argument (no climate change) has the best chance of having a negative effect on the planet.
Let's see, if we stop using carbon based power and technology slows what are the chances that you miss out on serious advancement towards realistic alternative power sources?
Where do you get that 99% figure? Moreover, let's be very careful when using the term scientist. You at least want to look at people published in serious peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic. I am not disputing the 99% figure. I just don't know what it mean nor where it comes from. It is certainly a number that has been mentioned by many people.
The correct number is 97%, not 99%. The source is the Cook (Australian Psychologist) et al 1997 report, which has been proven to be a fraud, and since when did science became a poll?
Let's see, if we stop using carbon based power and technology slows what are the chances that you miss out on serious advancement towards realistic alternative power sources?
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
Temperatures have not increased as CO2 has, so you can’t say this from that.
Really love it when what I say is taken out of a context. There is no simple relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature, repeat: THERE IS NO SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 CONCENTRATIONS AND TEMPERATURE.
Still CO2 influences temperature, but still we are not even remotely near understanding the total influence on nature, and historically there is no evidence of a simple relationship.
THERE IS NO SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 CONCENTRATIONS AND TEMPERATURE.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Still CO2 influences temperature, but still we are not even remotely near understanding the total influence on nature, and historically there is no evidence of a simple relationship.
Comments
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Lisa Jackson did work for Obama and Cook is giving her more and more power. But yes crony capitalism sucks and it's amazing to me that so many liberals don't seem to have a problem with it.
Your consistently petty and childish partisanship is mind-numbing, to say the least. Maybe one day you'll be able to go beyond "liberals are bad" in your discussion skills and actually think critically about each issue, instead of your predictable knee-jerk quips.
Now after 30 years, this is the first thing that has indicated to me that Apple has lost its way.
Kowtowing to bad science. Global Warming was disproven in the 1980s, but it's great for stealing peoples money, which government loves to do.
Apple should stay out of it.
Whether you believe in the environmental impact with conventional power generation or not, the cost is lower going with alternatives. Don't know where you are getting "global warning was disproven in the 80's", as the only scientist saying this reportedly had some connection with the oil industry. Regardless, Apple isn't paying a premium for alternatives, but rather a lower rate.
Managed forestry is not the answer. Using recycled material is. Already wrote to Tim Cook about it. Anyone else?
Perfect packaging isn't necessary. Recycled materials can be just as nice, if different.
I'd prefer Apple buy more forests and manage them directly for their own recyclable uses. Keep the government out of it, at least at the "micro" level, as long as the big corporations are actually cleaning up their own act, so to speak. This effort along with renewable power (which Apple is already doing) should help hedge against any revival of the carbon credit scam of the 2000's.
One thing is clear. Go read the serious article on climate through time and you will see it is nowhere as straightforward as some might have you think.
The renewable energy goal is laudable. I doubt it will be found in those ghastly windmills that are ruining the landscape and for most countries the solar option is simply not practical at this time. The real proven technology is nuclear and it doesn't have a great reputation. Carbon based fuels will be with us for a long time and provide a way of moving the technology bar forward in the search for more advanced power sources. The current electric fad is all marketing. Even places such as Québec with massive hydro resources ( generally thought of as a renewable clean source of power) conveniently omit how they ruined a great deal of the province's north in order to obtain their precious resources.
This is yet another case of Apple claiming on a politically correct bandwagon. What a company.
I agree on the rivers etc. but it is not a different matter at all. Do you realize how thin this planet's atmosphere is? How fragile the balance of just the right / lucky amounts of various gases made it so that life (as we know it) exists? It's worth looking at photographs taken from space and actually see this tiny, thin layer contrast against the earth's edge and outer space. It's only then, if you check the amount of pollutant gases man has pumped into it since the dawn of the industrial revolution you can start to see that it is no different from a river in terms of man's ability to pollute it significantly. This isn't smog I refer too, that's bad enough, rather gases that produce the greenhouse effect that heat the oceans of the world over time. So many 'clever' politicians from the Tea Party stand outside their respective state houses in our winter, with snowballs, stating that this 'proves' global warming is a myth. I truly believe these folks are unaware or have forgotten there is a Southern hemisphere. At that very moment they stand there it is summer down under and is experiencing record breaking temperatures too. That Southern hemisphere also happens to have by far the majority of this planet's oceans.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's reality. I predict, by the time even the deniers have to admit it's true, they will be claiming 'OK it's true but God is doing it to punish mankind for ... (add your own crap here).'
99% of scientists disagree with you. Of course the The Heritage Foundation pays a few scientists to write the stuff you mention here aimed at those without any scientific training to try to win them over by sounding reasonable.
I have wasted a silly amount of time looking into the evidence for AGW, and I can say with confidence that it is 100% horse shit.
Don't get me wrong, I feel we could clean up here and there pragmatically, but nobody can pull the wool over my eyes regarding AGW that affects the climate to any degree that matters.
No one has proven climate change or changes are caused by humans. For liberals it was called global warming until everyone in the northern part of the US started getting an average of 100 inches of snow in the winter, now it's climate change.
If people that deny climate change are wrong and we follow that path and do nothing what are the consequences? If people that believe something needs to be done about climate change are wrong and we follow that path what are the consequences? Seems your argument (no climate change) has the best chance of having a negative effect on the planet.
This thread got off to a predictable start...
Can't....control....my....Obama....outrage
Glad to see Apple doing it's part in contributing to the extension of the 18 year long hiatus in global warming.
Only human arrogance would lead people to claim that their activities are warming the planet.
Not pouring toxic sludge into a river is another matter entirely. Governments don't typically set up huge wealth transfer schemes on that issue.
Human activity is warming the planet! CO2 is increasing and 3-4% of CO2 emissions are caused by humans, and classic thermodynamics show that this results in a warming.
The question is not YES or NO, its is HOW MUCH! Science doesn't know, but most indications are that the answer is that very little is human caused!
What we read in the papers is politics, not science, and so is what Apple is doing!
Where do you get that 99% figure? Moreover, let's be very careful when using the term scientist. You at least want to look at people published in serious peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic. I am not disputing the 99% figure. I just don't know what it means nor where it comes from. It is certainly a number that has been mentioned by many people.
Human-induced climate change is a reality.
If you can at the very least acknowledge the impact of, say, air pollution...
Two things.
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
A lie.
Temperatures have not increased as CO2 has, so you can’t say this from that.
Let's see, if we stop using carbon based power and technology slows what are the chances that you miss out on serious advancement towards realistic alternative power sources?
Posted by PMCD:
Where do you get that 99% figure? Moreover, let's be very careful when using the term scientist. You at least want to look at people published in serious peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic. I am not disputing the 99% figure. I just don't know what it mean nor where it comes from. It is certainly a number that has been mentioned by many people.
The correct number is 97%, not 99%. The source is the Cook (Australian Psychologist) et al 1997 report, which has been proven to be a fraud, and since when did science became a poll?
Let's see, if we stop using carbon based power and technology slows what are the chances that you miss out on serious advancement towards realistic alternative power sources?
Let see, why would that happen?
Two things.
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
A lie.
Temperatures have not increased as CO2 has, so you can’t say this from that.
Really love it when what I say is taken out of a context. There is no simple relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature, repeat: THERE IS NO SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 CONCENTRATIONS AND TEMPERATURE.
Still CO2 influences temperature, but still we are not even remotely near understanding the total influence on nature, and historically there is no evidence of a simple relationship.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.