While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.
No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite. Step outside at noon and look up at that bright round HOT shiny thing in the sky - theres the simple explanation , unfortunately, it doesn't involve human guilt that must be expiated by returning man to iron age living conditions so it is an unacceptable explanation for many.
I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. It's really great to see that Apple is concerned as well. Kind of a bummer to read all these posts boooing what is a very important issue, imo.
Let's all grow our hair long, smoke pot, and hug trees.
Yes, we can't go trashing our environment, but be reasonable as well... Statistics is a two-way game, everyone can skew them.
Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge..
Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing. Cutting down trees through excessive logging and paper consumption that are essential in recycling humanity's excessive CO2 emissions is part of the problem, as well as over-population and suburban sprawl. Note that Los Angeles had the BEST electrical mass transit train system in the 1930-40's until General Motors bought the mass electrical system out with a monopoly in order to use diesel buses ( http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm and a Wikipedia reference just for those that believe it to be the best lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy ) ? Check it out. We have become an oil based nation with political powers that have heavy ties to oil companies. Lee Raymond, ex-Exxon/Mobil CEO retired with a $400 MILLION DOLLAR PARACHUTE PACKAGE ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989 )! Exxon/Mobil reported the biggest profits in the fourth quarter of 2005 of $10.7 Billion at a time when Americans were paying the most at the pump ( http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1558860 ). Apparently this was due to the extra money Exxon/Mobil spent acquiring oil due to Katrina and Iraq, yet if that were the case their profit margin would have remained the SAME, not increased, in order to compensate for costs. We're all pawns in the corporate/political oil game people, it's time we woke up from our dream states of bigger flat screen TV's, political rhetoric and realized we're just sheep baa'ing our way through it all.
Again, show us the links that show:
A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years
Prove that it is naturally occurring and not at the hands of humanity.
I think people get angry over this issue because it is hard to accept that our way of life is negatively impacting the planet and our future. We have become arrogant creatures with our religious beliefs and our recent rapid rise in technological innovations since the industrial revolution that we have lost sight of the fact that we are still carbon based life forms that are a small part in nature’s grand scheme. Using Al Gore as an escape goat and piñata to blow off and continue our lives of luxury and indifference is not going to solve the problem, and the "figures" from FOX News and Wikipedia (FACT Wikipedia is a user submitted site and many of the "facts" are completely inaccurate that teachers and Professors have automatically failed students for referencing any information from Wikipedia) have been proven inaccurate and laughable. We need a lot more humility in our lives...
Instead of casting all this aside and arguing, why not make a difference. It's easy to criticize someone for putting something they passionately believe in out there than it is in doing something positive and active. I recycle 50-60% of all our household waste; I purchase organic produce and only shop from retailers that ship using recyclable materials. I recycle all cardboard materials and paper products, use cloth dinner napkins and biodegradable household products such as Method (which are cheap and sold at Target). I recently purchased brand new Kenmore Elite stainless steel appliances for my parents and my home, including dishwasher drawers that use less water and energy, and I saved 20% plus 10% and another 10% on the appliances and warranties, with two years no interest on my Sears card. The point is, if we all do a little bit (and we don't have to spend a fortune), each one of us can make a difference, we just have to realize that we need to and care enough to make it happen...
Al Gore is demonstrating that there is a huge green economy out there waiting to be made, if we just transition slowly off of oil we would not need to be involved in the Middle East conflicts (although something tells me our government has done more to produce these conflicts in order to gauge oil prices and create more terrorism - wasn't it the U.S. that trained Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein in the first place?). An economy based on green power is not a fantasy, it can and has to become a reality, we just need to make it happen with our dollars...
This is so easy to say - but EVERYTHING is about money. The pressure for Apple to keep costs down and be competitive has been consistently high for years. If Apple DIDN'T save 14 cents per unit, people would complain about paying a premium for their oblivion-sparing practices. Ideally, every company should care about the world and do whatever is necessary to save it - but that will never happen. Every company should put solar panels on the sides of their buildings. But if it costs them money to do it, they won't. They can make better quality paper out of hemp, which grows back in one year vs the years it takes for trees to grow back - but they don't change because it would cost money to change the infrastructure. The bottom line is...there are LOTS of great green solutions right now that would save the planet, but no one will implement them if they cost money. Money is everything. Why isn't everyone driving a hybrid car? Because they're more expensive. If company A made a computer that was basically the same as company B's, but environmentally safer and more expensive - the majority of people would buy company B's. Sad, but true. Money is everything. Okay, tirade over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
without going on a rant that would be ohh-so easy, YES greenpeace can be extremely annoying, but all companies, computer manufacturers included, should be looking more at saving us from oblivion instead of saving 14 cents per unit.
This is so easy to say - but EVERYTHING is about money. The pressure for Apple to keep costs down and be competitive has been consistently high for years. If Apple DIDN'T save 14 cents per unit, people would complain about paying a premium for their oblivion-sparing practices. Ideally, every company should care about the world and do whatever is necessary to save it - but that will never happen. Every company should put solar panels on the sides of their buildings. But if it costs them money to do it, they won't. They can make better quality paper out of hemp, which grows back in one year vs the years it takes for trees to grow back - but they don't change because it would cost money to change the infrastructure. The bottom line is...there are LOTS of great green solutions right now that would save the planet, but no one will implement them if they cost money. Money is everything. Why isn't everyone driving a hybrid car? Because they're more expensive. If company A made a computer that was basically the same as company B's, but environmentally safer and more expensive - the majority of people would buy company B's. Sad, but true. Money is everything. Okay, tirade over.
Very true, but with mass production comes less cost. Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less. Initially, the expense would be enormous for companies to become more "green", but with little strides here and there, and environmental/corporate laws to ensure such strides (and Bush placing Gail Norton, who has been PRO big business and against environmental protection policy's, as interior secretary set the U.S. back decades in environmental advancements), in a few decades money/costs would not be such an issue. We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...
I used to be a contributor to Greenpeace's activities; some I still passively support (like their action on whaling)... but their histrionic, half-baked and mis-directed attacks on Apple meant they lost my subscription. I now make donations to less self-important, up-them-selves environmental organisations.
They ain't getting my money back through this sort of carry-on either....
"Like their action on whaling" Take it from a guy who has grown up eating whale meat. All whales aren't in danger to extinction! Greenpeace have made so much mess towards my country, because we hunt/"make them turn toward the beach" and kill them, whereafter we eat every ounce there is on the whale. This is also important to my country's economy, as we save ALOT on imported meat. Believe me, Pilot Whales are not endangered from extinction, far from.
And no, we don't do it because we just love to kill, or because we want the whales to suffer. They die almost instantenously.
If Greenpace should protest, they really should focus their energy on the enormously bad conditions that pigs, chickens, cows etc. live in.
At least the Pilot Whales live a joyful life in the open sea.
Greenpeace should dive deeper into many of their cases before they shout out.
-cincerely, Mars
PS: "Free Willy" from the movie, or the killer whale, is not friendly like an ordinary dog. It is a wild animal that is the second in the food chain. Humans are first.
lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge..
Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing.
Again, show us the links that show:
A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years
Prove that it is naturally occurring and not at the hands of humanity.
I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .
Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.
So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .
Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.
So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous...
Don't be too quick, there.
It may turn out to be erroneous, but it's not at all preposterous. This is an interesting bit of news that has come from recent reports from NASA. Mars is also undergoing globabl warming, and its polar ice caps are shrinking.
Remember that the sun is not a static entity. It's very dynamic. It undergoes long cycles of higher and lower sunspot activity, for instance. The great dust bowl of the last century was only partly due to unwise farming practices. It also happened during a peak in sunspot activity. These things really do matter.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember that back in the SEVENTIES, everyone was panicked about the big ice-age that the world was about to be plunged into.
Now, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening. I'm also not saying that we're not impacting the global climate.
One of the things I'm saying, though, is that the effects aren't fully understood. Case in point: Mars. Personally, one of my big arguments about the likelihood of the reality of global warming was the thinnning of the ice caps. But the news that Mars' ice caps are shrinking is frankly very astonishing.
It may not change your mind about our own situation, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, both you and I are obligated to stop, take a breath, look at this new piece of data, and ask ourselves seriously how this impacts what we're saying.
Every now and then, we get wound up about things that seem very important, but when you look for the expected impact, it doesn't seem to be there.
Consider the ozone hole over the south pole. Last I recall, it started to shrink, by the way, but that's not the point. There were all manner of problems we'd hear about, that were supposed to be attributable to a depletion of the ozone layer. Increased cataracts was a biggy. Increased skin cancer is hard to be sure of in the wild, because the animals are covered anyway. But cataracts. We expected to see cataracts. But we don't. Why? I don't have that answer. Keep in mind that the increased levels of UV that were going through this hole in the ozone were far LESS than the increased UV you can get simply by travelling from where I live in Texas down to the beach. So if a hole in the ozone is bad (which it might well be), why aren't we seeing those horrible problems based on latitude? We do see a difference in skin cancer rates, but not on a calamatous scale.
All I'm saying is that you need to pause and see that some of the people telling you about the coming disaster, they have a vested interest in panicking you, because if you believe there's an emergency and only THEY are dealing with it, well, you're more likely to open you wallet. Or surrender your freedoms.
Just something to think about. And it's especially a problem because there are certainly some bad things we're doing to our planet, and they need to be addressed.
But if we panic about the wrong things, then (a) we waste resources that would have been better spent elsewhere, (b) the public becomes cynical about the other things you're saying (case in point: this forum. Rightly or wrongly, you're seeing a lot of people who no longer will listen to Greenpeace, the next time they tell us about something bad going on), (c) genuine problems will be more advanced by the time they really do become apparent.
The issue about global warming & Mars is fascinating. And sobering. Don't ignore it. Integrate it into your data set. Remember the bogus ice age we almost had in the 1970s. Integrate that into your data set. Remember Greenpeace's very well-documented and unrepentant dishonesty in this current situation with Apple. But at the same time, this doesn't mean anybody has a right to say, "See, humans aren't having any significant impact." Because that's entirely wrong. I'd point you to fishing data for an easy one. It's all over the place, but it's nicely summarized in the last chapter of "The Making of the Fittest." If you want good data about how we're causing ecological damage, look there. But trace amounts of arsenic in computers? That, my friends, is people wasting your time. That's people panicking about nothing. There's more arsenic in some of your foods. That's like people panicking that NutraSweet metabolism created acetone! And acetone can be a poison! Gasp! What they didn't mention is that acetone is simply produced during the metabolism of certain amino acids. The body copes it with. Drink a bottle of acetone and you're screwed. As a byproduct of NutraSweet metabolism, it's nothing. Nothing.
Save the planet, please, but don't be stupid about it. Greenpeace is becoming less like a skilled hunting dog and more like a rabid animal, simply barking and barking. My advice is to be very very careful about which dog you hunt with -- NOT that you shouldn't hunt. Greenpeace is spending too much effort simply trying to intimidate people; in so doing, they're squandering political capital, and probably real capital too. They no longer have a sense of relative risk, if they ever really did, and they have no concern with actual data, as is apparent in the current fracas.
Panic-mongering won't save the world. If anything, it endangers the world, because it makes us jaded.
Perhaps YOU will save the world, CJD2112. Honestly, I wish you all the luck in the world -- for my own, very selfish reasons. Get to it, my friend.
No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite.
This is wrong from the get go...
Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.
In other words, you are full of hot air...
Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?
Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??
Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me
Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.
Apparently, you're not a very smart (or attentive) Aussie john.
Where did I mention "Apple" in my post? (Check it again). It was about Greenpeace, not Apple. And, yes, I am suggesting that they are, in all likelihood, a bunch of atavistic hypocrites.
(Oh, btw, I am an Apple fan-boy. I am not sure what your point there is, since that had nothing to do with my post).
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.
Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c.
That's not true. I had friends visiting from Pluto last weekend. The average temperature there has gone up there, too. The average temperature the past couple of years has been -236.5C! They're very worried. If it keeps going up, soon the oxygen is going to melt and they won't be able to breathe. Like everyone else, they blame America on their problem.
Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.
In other words, you are full of hot air...
Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?
Mea culpa. I was thinking of Co2's relative green house gas effect compared with say methane - not the overall effect due to it's greater abundance.
Comments
While this may be true historically, it is clear also from prehistoric ice cores that co2 has a synergistic effect on temperature. That is, heat increases the metabolic cycling of carbon (thus resulting in more co2), and the increase in co2 causes more heat to be trapped. Cause and effect are irrelevant since it is a direct feedback loop.
No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite. Step outside at noon and look up at that bright round HOT shiny thing in the sky - theres the simple explanation , unfortunately, it doesn't involve human guilt that must be expiated by returning man to iron age living conditions so it is an unacceptable explanation for many.
Complements were especially warm....
No, "Compliments....." Basic English, folks.
I don't think it's fair to jump on Greenpeace so viciously. They are concerned about the environment and are just trying to make a difference. It's really great to see that Apple is concerned as well. Kind of a bummer to read all these posts boooing what is a very important issue, imo.
Let's all grow our hair long, smoke pot, and hug trees.
Yes, we can't go trashing our environment, but be reasonable as well... Statistics is a two-way game, everyone can skew them.
Nothing you allege is fact or proven. Warming is occurring on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune and Pluto. How is that caused by man's Co2 emissions? The long term historical record indicates that Co2 levels rise after temperatures have risen. Fairly easy to see which variable is causative and which is dependent.
lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge..
Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing. Cutting down trees through excessive logging and paper consumption that are essential in recycling humanity's excessive CO2 emissions is part of the problem, as well as over-population and suburban sprawl. Note that Los Angeles had the BEST electrical mass transit train system in the 1930-40's until General Motors bought the mass electrical system out with a monopoly in order to use diesel buses ( http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm and a Wikipedia reference just for those that believe it to be the best lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy ) ? Check it out. We have become an oil based nation with political powers that have heavy ties to oil companies. Lee Raymond, ex-Exxon/Mobil CEO retired with a $400 MILLION DOLLAR PARACHUTE PACKAGE ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989 )! Exxon/Mobil reported the biggest profits in the fourth quarter of 2005 of $10.7 Billion at a time when Americans were paying the most at the pump ( http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1558860 ). Apparently this was due to the extra money Exxon/Mobil spent acquiring oil due to Katrina and Iraq, yet if that were the case their profit margin would have remained the SAME, not increased, in order to compensate for costs. We're all pawns in the corporate/political oil game people, it's time we woke up from our dream states of bigger flat screen TV's, political rhetoric and realized we're just sheep baa'ing our way through it all.
Again, show us the links that show:
A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years
I think people get angry over this issue because it is hard to accept that our way of life is negatively impacting the planet and our future. We have become arrogant creatures with our religious beliefs and our recent rapid rise in technological innovations since the industrial revolution that we have lost sight of the fact that we are still carbon based life forms that are a small part in nature’s grand scheme. Using Al Gore as an escape goat and piñata to blow off and continue our lives of luxury and indifference is not going to solve the problem, and the "figures" from FOX News and Wikipedia (FACT Wikipedia is a user submitted site and many of the "facts" are completely inaccurate that teachers and Professors have automatically failed students for referencing any information from Wikipedia) have been proven inaccurate and laughable. We need a lot more humility in our lives...
Instead of casting all this aside and arguing, why not make a difference. It's easy to criticize someone for putting something they passionately believe in out there than it is in doing something positive and active. I recycle 50-60% of all our household waste; I purchase organic produce and only shop from retailers that ship using recyclable materials. I recycle all cardboard materials and paper products, use cloth dinner napkins and biodegradable household products such as Method (which are cheap and sold at Target). I recently purchased brand new Kenmore Elite stainless steel appliances for my parents and my home, including dishwasher drawers that use less water and energy, and I saved 20% plus 10% and another 10% on the appliances and warranties, with two years no interest on my Sears card. The point is, if we all do a little bit (and we don't have to spend a fortune), each one of us can make a difference, we just have to realize that we need to and care enough to make it happen...
Al Gore is demonstrating that there is a huge green economy out there waiting to be made, if we just transition slowly off of oil we would not need to be involved in the Middle East conflicts (although something tells me our government has done more to produce these conflicts in order to gauge oil prices and create more terrorism - wasn't it the U.S. that trained Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein in the first place?). An economy based on green power is not a fantasy, it can and has to become a reality, we just need to make it happen with our dollars...
Apple
http://www.apple.com/
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
http://www.apple.com/environment/
Dell Earth
http://www.dell.com/html/global/topi...rth/index.html
HP
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitiz...ent/index.html
Sony
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/
Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
On a quick perusal of Greenpeaces Green Electronics Guides for Apple and Dell, I refer to Job's previous comment, "Bullshit."
Best of all:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingw...n_th.html#more
Perhaps Greenpeace shoud add another category to clean up, i.e., the web. Starting with their own site.
without going on a rant that would be ohh-so easy, YES greenpeace can be extremely annoying, but all companies, computer manufacturers included, should be looking more at saving us from oblivion instead of saving 14 cents per unit.
This is so easy to say - but EVERYTHING is about money. The pressure for Apple to keep costs down and be competitive has been consistently high for years. If Apple DIDN'T save 14 cents per unit, people would complain about paying a premium for their oblivion-sparing practices. Ideally, every company should care about the world and do whatever is necessary to save it - but that will never happen. Every company should put solar panels on the sides of their buildings. But if it costs them money to do it, they won't. They can make better quality paper out of hemp, which grows back in one year vs the years it takes for trees to grow back - but they don't change because it would cost money to change the infrastructure. The bottom line is...there are LOTS of great green solutions right now that would save the planet, but no one will implement them if they cost money. Money is everything. Why isn't everyone driving a hybrid car? Because they're more expensive. If company A made a computer that was basically the same as company B's, but environmentally safer and more expensive - the majority of people would buy company B's. Sad, but true. Money is everything. Okay, tirade over.
Very true, but with mass production comes less cost. Fact is, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have less moving parts than combustion engines, and while expensive now if in mass production hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would cost thousands less. Initially, the expense would be enormous for companies to become more "green", but with little strides here and there, and environmental/corporate laws to ensure such strides (and Bush placing Gail Norton, who has been PRO big business and against environmental protection policy's, as interior secretary set the U.S. back decades in environmental advancements), in a few decades money/costs would not be such an issue. We just need to make the initial change, we have to WANT it. Sadly, humanity doesn't tend to want to change their ways until it is too late...
There were a lime-coloured iBook already
he he he. Had to chuckle at that one.
I used to be a contributor to Greenpeace's activities; some I still passively support (like their action on whaling)... but their histrionic, half-baked and mis-directed attacks on Apple meant they lost my subscription. I now make donations to less self-important, up-them-selves environmental organisations.
They ain't getting my money back through this sort of carry-on either....
"Like their action on whaling" Take it from a guy who has grown up eating whale meat. All whales aren't in danger to extinction! Greenpeace have made so much mess towards my country, because we hunt/"make them turn toward the beach" and kill them, whereafter we eat every ounce there is on the whale. This is also important to my country's economy, as we save ALOT on imported meat. Believe me, Pilot Whales are not endangered from extinction, far from.
And no, we don't do it because we just love to kill, or because we want the whales to suffer. They die almost instantenously.
If Greenpace should protest, they really should focus their energy on the enormously bad conditions that pigs, chickens, cows etc. live in.
At least the Pilot Whales live a joyful life in the open sea.
Greenpeace should dive deeper into many of their cases before they shout out.
-cincerely, Mars
PS: "Free Willy" from the movie, or the killer whale, is not friendly like an ordinary dog. It is a wild animal that is the second in the food chain. Humans are first.
lol show me this "data", me and the rest of the world are very curious on this data that apparently has escaped the scientific communities knowledge..
Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing.
Again, show us the links that show:
A) Other planets are experiencing similar rapid rises in CO2 levels over the past 100 years
I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .
Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.
So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
As for B - http://tinyurl.com/2sg7ep and http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm
I did NOT say that the rise in temperature of other bodies in the solar system was due to rises in Co2 .
Quite the opposite. The point is that these bodies are getting warmer - just like the Earth is. They can't be getting warmer because of Co2 - (in the case of Pluto, it doesn't have any (gaseos)) - so something ELSE must be causing the warming - that something else is most likely an increase in the energy output of the Sun.
So I cant answer A) - because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
As for B - http://tinyurl.com/2sg7ep and http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous...
Don't be too quick, there.
It may turn out to be erroneous, but it's not at all preposterous. This is an interesting bit of news that has come from recent reports from NASA. Mars is also undergoing globabl warming, and its polar ice caps are shrinking.
Remember that the sun is not a static entity. It's very dynamic. It undergoes long cycles of higher and lower sunspot activity, for instance. The great dust bowl of the last century was only partly due to unwise farming practices. It also happened during a peak in sunspot activity. These things really do matter.
I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember that back in the SEVENTIES, everyone was panicked about the big ice-age that the world was about to be plunged into.
Now, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening. I'm also not saying that we're not impacting the global climate.
One of the things I'm saying, though, is that the effects aren't fully understood. Case in point: Mars. Personally, one of my big arguments about the likelihood of the reality of global warming was the thinnning of the ice caps. But the news that Mars' ice caps are shrinking is frankly very astonishing.
It may not change your mind about our own situation, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, both you and I are obligated to stop, take a breath, look at this new piece of data, and ask ourselves seriously how this impacts what we're saying.
Every now and then, we get wound up about things that seem very important, but when you look for the expected impact, it doesn't seem to be there.
Consider the ozone hole over the south pole. Last I recall, it started to shrink, by the way, but that's not the point. There were all manner of problems we'd hear about, that were supposed to be attributable to a depletion of the ozone layer. Increased cataracts was a biggy. Increased skin cancer is hard to be sure of in the wild, because the animals are covered anyway. But cataracts. We expected to see cataracts. But we don't. Why? I don't have that answer. Keep in mind that the increased levels of UV that were going through this hole in the ozone were far LESS than the increased UV you can get simply by travelling from where I live in Texas down to the beach. So if a hole in the ozone is bad (which it might well be), why aren't we seeing those horrible problems based on latitude? We do see a difference in skin cancer rates, but not on a calamatous scale.
All I'm saying is that you need to pause and see that some of the people telling you about the coming disaster, they have a vested interest in panicking you, because if you believe there's an emergency and only THEY are dealing with it, well, you're more likely to open you wallet. Or surrender your freedoms.
Just something to think about. And it's especially a problem because there are certainly some bad things we're doing to our planet, and they need to be addressed.
But if we panic about the wrong things, then (a) we waste resources that would have been better spent elsewhere, (b) the public becomes cynical about the other things you're saying (case in point: this forum. Rightly or wrongly, you're seeing a lot of people who no longer will listen to Greenpeace, the next time they tell us about something bad going on), (c) genuine problems will be more advanced by the time they really do become apparent.
The issue about global warming & Mars is fascinating. And sobering. Don't ignore it. Integrate it into your data set. Remember the bogus ice age we almost had in the 1970s. Integrate that into your data set. Remember Greenpeace's very well-documented and unrepentant dishonesty in this current situation with Apple. But at the same time, this doesn't mean anybody has a right to say, "See, humans aren't having any significant impact." Because that's entirely wrong. I'd point you to fishing data for an easy one. It's all over the place, but it's nicely summarized in the last chapter of "The Making of the Fittest." If you want good data about how we're causing ecological damage, look there. But trace amounts of arsenic in computers? That, my friends, is people wasting your time. That's people panicking about nothing. There's more arsenic in some of your foods. That's like people panicking that NutraSweet metabolism created acetone! And acetone can be a poison! Gasp! What they didn't mention is that acetone is simply produced during the metabolism of certain amino acids. The body copes it with. Drink a bottle of acetone and you're screwed. As a byproduct of NutraSweet metabolism, it's nothing. Nothing.
Save the planet, please, but don't be stupid about it. Greenpeace is becoming less like a skilled hunting dog and more like a rabid animal, simply barking and barking. My advice is to be very very careful about which dog you hunt with -- NOT that you shouldn't hunt. Greenpeace is spending too much effort simply trying to intimidate people; in so doing, they're squandering political capital, and probably real capital too. They no longer have a sense of relative risk, if they ever really did, and they have no concern with actual data, as is apparent in the current fracas.
Panic-mongering won't save the world. If anything, it endangers the world, because it makes us jaded.
Perhaps YOU will save the world, CJD2112. Honestly, I wish you all the luck in the world -- for my own, very selfish reasons. Get to it, my friend.
By the way, here are a couple of links:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
SPACE.com -- Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggests
</soapbox>
No. Co2 is the least abundant and least effective of the greenhouse gases - it's effect is minuscule. To postulate that it is the principal component of a feedback mechanism powerful enough to significantly effect the temperature of the earth is ... misguided, to be polite.
This is wrong from the get go...
Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.
In other words, you are full of hot air...
Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?
Dont be such an apple fan boy (and the other posters) - one can never criticise Apple!!!??
Yes if you are a Greenpeace supporter, you would never drive a car, fly in plane, eat pesticide covered vegetables et al - oh spare me
Computer companies do have a responsibility to produce toxic free (or as close as possible) products and kudos to Greenpeace for being on on the manufacturers' cases and likewise kudos to Apple for any legitimate effort to reduce toxic products and excess waste.
Apparently, you're not a very smart (or attentive) Aussie john.
Where did I mention "Apple" in my post? (Check it again). It was about Greenpeace, not Apple. And, yes, I am suggesting that they are, in all likelihood, a bunch of atavistic hypocrites.
(Oh, btw, I am an Apple fan-boy. I am not sure what your point there is, since that had nothing to do with my post).
The idea that the sun is causing global warming is preposterous and erroneous. Certainly the sun causes warming, but not nearly to the extent that has been demonstrated over the past century. As for my A) question, I said give proof that those planets are warming, I didn't necessarily state warming from CO2. My inclusion of CO2 was due to the fact that comparing Earth to the other planets in the solar system is comparing apples to oranges, as the other planets do not have the same atmosphere and conditions (or humans for that matter) as Earth does. To make the statement that all the planets are warming together at the same rate is quite a scientific discovery that hasn't made headline news as I'm certain that claim hasn't been made. I'd like to know more though...
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c. The average temperature of the Earth is 15c. The atmosphere contributes 33c to the Earth's heat so the Sun is responsible for 238+15-33 = 220c of heating compared with the atmospheres 33c (without the sun there would be no contribution from the atmosphere so I am being kind). So which factor is the most significant one for contributing to the overall warmth of the Earth ?
The rise in temperature of the Earth over the last 100yrs is:
a) 5 c
b) 2.5 c
c) 0.6 c
So which is the correct answer - given that you imply there has been a significant rise.
I never said the planets were warming at the same rate - they have different orbits and atmospheres so I wouldn't expect them to warm at the same rate. I just said they are warming.
Why are you again asking for a link supporting the idea of general planetary warming? I gave it in my previous post. What did you think those links were for - decoration?
The Sun is the only thing (ignoring the core) keeping the Earth from being as cold as Pluto, which is -238c.
That's not true. I had friends visiting from Pluto last weekend. The average temperature there has gone up there, too. The average temperature the past couple of years has been -236.5C! They're very worried. If it keeps going up, soon the oxygen is going to melt and they won't be able to breathe. Like everyone else, they blame America on their problem.
This is wrong from the get go...
Other than water, CO2 concentration is almost 1000x the concentration of the nearest significant greenhouse gas (methane). It isn't 1/1000th as efficient as absorbing IR radiation as methane; in fact, its effect on heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere is second only to water vapor.
In other words, you are full of hot air...
Really, do you just pick facts out of the air to suit your theories?
Mea culpa. I was thinking of Co2's relative green house gas effect compared with say methane - not the overall effect due to it's greater abundance.