On what authority? Common sense. The atmosphere is made of an unimaginable amount of individual particles, all swirling and whirling and influencing each other and influenced by outside factors. There is no way we have an accurate mathematical model of that without making massive simplification. The idea that in such a complex system, we can say with any certainty, that one gas: carbon dioxide is the source of all our problems is just epistemologically untenable.
Well we shouldn't let social pressure override our common sense about what man is and is not capable of mathematically and epistemologically.
You accuse me of being superstitious, and yet to me it seems you are the superstitious one, imbuing man with almost God-like powers of cognition, understanding and prediction.
I have no idea what 'epistemologically untenable' means, but it is often a thin line between stupidity and uninformed common sense. See under Big KC's post below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big KC
Perhaps you should better educate yourself as well. There are 2 sides to this debate. Climate change is real. Whether or not it's significantly man-made is VERY much in doubt.
Groan. You give me a link to Senator Inhofe's web page!? Heaven help us.
I suppose this partial, tiny list of organizations must be uninformed when they say that global warming is anthropogenic: The scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, and the US, as well as the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, and American Chemical Society. And, I should add, the US EPA under George Bush.
As I said before, it is a thin line between stupidity and common sense. But you know what? There is no law against either, so go right ahead.
The new Web site also pushes Apple's recycling program, where users can learn how to send in their old iPod, iPhone or Mac. Users of handheld devices can fill out a form with their name and address and will be provided a prepaid mailer, while Mac owners can recycle their old system for free with the purchase of any new system in an Apple Store.
poorly written statement. 1. it leaves out the discount for bring an ipod to the store and 2, it implies you can drop off your computer. you can not. if you dig deeper you will see that the computers are all shipped. the question is who pays the shipping and recycling fees. if you just bought a computer (from Apple in store or online), they will pay. if not, you do. this probably has to do with that non refundable recycling fee you have to pay in many states now when you buy electronics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
Interesting. Jobs himself even speaks out in this article. He must really care about this himself although it should come as no surprise. It good to see Apple leading the front on environmental awareness.
actually it is something of a PR move. they are pushing to be more open about why they made some of the choices they did to stop some of the screaming. they get applause from the pro-environment types for the green side and those that are screaming 'down with the glass' see that there is a rhyme and reason to the screen choice even if it does have serious glare issues. if and when Apple can find a non reflective glass that is environmentally friendly and cost effective enough to use without more than a $30-50 surcharge to the customers they will announce it with great fanfare and shouting of how green it is
plus as others pointed out, these days being green is often more cost effective across the board. so we get practically a sleeve with our snow leopard, they dump the manuals for DVDs full of PDF for final cut studio etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
yes and no.
yes in that the idea behind the device is to promote digital media and thus reduce the plastic being produced and filling up houses and landfills.
no in that, as you suggest, it is not the best made device, using up perhaps too much energy, being made of a poor choice of materials etc.
and to those saying 'but it's only a tiny bit of energy', remember that you are thinking one device. TS is likely thinking of the impact of the single drop repeated a few thousand times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What is so funny about that? Looks like a very useful app to me, and Apple has nothing along these lines. And, it's free.
but ask yourself this. how green is microsoft. how green is their offices and production centers. how green is the hardware they do produce and do they make any requirements on their partners to be green and be open about it.
could it be that Microsoft isn't really green at all and this is something of a smoke screen so folks don't do the math. or ask the questions
as for the software, just because Apple doesn't make and promote such an item doesn't mean that it isn't out there provided by someone else.
I see they've got a big check mark next to mercury, yet the iMac, MacBook and 30" Cinema Display still ship with fluorescent backlighting. Maybe this means they're finally going to extend LED backlighting to the entire product line. That would be nice change
I thought it wasn't clear the carbon is the cause of climate change. This could all be a big waste of time by Apple.
Congratulations, you have been successfully confused by the multibillion dollar efforts of various vested interests and their attempts to confuse the issue.
Greenhouse gasses have been studied and understood for close to 40 years now. There is no controversy in the science community around the fact that Carbon (dioxide) emissions have warmed the planet. But just watch as all sorts of "sciency" folks will leap to dispute this with no scientific evidence whatsoever (just a paycheck for their "research" from an oil company.)
I think, after that dog wouldn't hunt anymore, the "scientists" from the cigarette companies must have gotten new jobs with oil companies.
I see they've got a big check mark next to mercury, yet the iMac, MacBook and 30" Cinema Display still ship with fluorescent backlighting. Maybe this means they're finally going to extend LED backlighting to the entire product line. That would be nice change
that would be great. They are long overdue. It was rumoured that the lack ACD updates was Apple waiting for Resolution Independence before adding higher PPI displays, but that ship has sailed with Leopard and Snow Leopard having such poor RI completion. The current popular theory is that making a 30? or bigger LCD display with a that size LED-backliht proved to be a problem; but we don?t really know. I do hope that they get updated soon with mDP connectors and power-passthroughs since notebooks do continue to grow in popularity.
I'm not really a huge environmentalist though I feel if there's a laptop that has less chemicals made and is more easily recyclable for the same price as something that is not, eh I'll go for it.
As was shown at the time, nobody realized that Apple had a comprehensive environmental site in place at the time stating much of what is posted today, including product disclosures. And had the site up for years. Just like their ergonomic site, which it too has been around for over a decade.
Actually, I have always assumed that Greenpeace was just attacking Apple to get some free advertising.
Even a cursory examination of Apple's products at the time would have easily shown how much more green they were then existing alternatives. Apple's products were made of more valuable materials, were more recyclable, were used less packaging, less energy, lasted longer, iTMS etc. For God's sake, Greenpeace rated producer of "disposable" computers *Dell* greener than Apple. Same for HP, and IBM/Lenovo. This was done mostly on the strength of what these companies claimed they were planning to do in the future. Greenpeace actually valued these companies' promised actions for the future more than Apple's good actions of past and present.
What Apple really learned was to toot their own horn. If people don't notice the good things you are doing, you get no credit for doing them. Its good though. It will make all companies more conscientious about their actions.
Read the criteria and scoring system. Its 1/3 based on what the companies say they are doing or are planning to do, 1/3 based on the companies' perceived reputations, and only 1/3 based on actual impacts (but poorly measured) see here:
It also looks at company inputs/outputs in a stupid way. They look as sources, but not use. If they waste tons of energy but it's bought from wind farms, they are green, but if they carefully use a minimum of conventionally generated electricity, the company sucks (one reason Dell and HP do so well.)
Also notice that in the criteria and methodology they are not looking very hard at the life cycle of the products these companies produce. Hello! That's the main source of environmental issues a manufacturing company generates. "They make a wasteful product that ends up in a landfill, but gosh, their boardroom table is made of plantation harvested mahogany."
Apparently nobody noticed that Apple, almost singlehandedly, turned the manufacture, distribution, and use, and eventual disposal of music into ones and zeros and a flash of electricity. What's more important?
As I said before, it is a thin line between stupidity and common sense. But you know what? There is no law against either, so go right ahead.
So, the 700+ scientists who are not buying into global warming being a man-made, carbon-produced disaster are wrong, and you and Al Gore are right? 30 years ago we were told that another ice age was coming. Now it's the other way around. The liberal media sees to it that these dissenters are largely unheard from, and discredits them whenever possible. Gee, that's a big surprise.
It's all about the Benjamins. Gore profits mightily from his outrageous "carbon credits" nonsense (while living like the ultra-wealthy, over-consuming limousine liberal that he is). Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a money grab.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
I don't know if it's one of the most hilarious comments I've read or the most insane.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
Because we're not as strong and adaptable as we'd like to think.
The worry about climate change isn't for the planet's sake, it's for ours.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
Yours is a common misrepresentation of natural selection ("survival of the fittest") as a promotion of the good ("strong and adaptable") and punishment of the bad ("weak and unadaptable.") In other words, you are conflating "survival of the fittest" with "survival of the best." But of course nature makes no such value judgments, only people do. It's what has come to be called "Social Darwinism" which is a seperate (and some would say debunked) concept which has no real relation to Darwin or the evolution of species.
When evolutionary pressure is put on a species, the whole population are stressed and suffers. Individuals who are lucky enough to have some slightly beneficial mutant character (which well may be a "weak and unadaptable" trait in slightly different circumstances) may be slightly more abel to survive and possibly reproduce in the new situation. But all the individuals suffer the stress.
Your idea is as ridiculous as praising the lucky single survivor of a massive carpet bombing attack, then ridiculing the hundreds of dead victims as "weak and unadaptable," and finally claiming, "Carpet bombing is a great thing because it makes us stronger."
So, the 700+ scientists who are not buying into global warming being a man-made, carbon-produced disaster are wrong, and you and Al Gore are right? 30 years ago we were told that another ice age was coming. Now it's the other way around. The liberal media sees to it that these dissenters are largely unheard from, and discredits them whenever possible. Gee, that's a big surprise.
It's all about the Benjamins. Gore profits mightily from his outrageous "carbon credits" nonsense (while living like the ultra-wealthy, over-consuming limousine liberal that he is). Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a money grab.
I'll answer that! Yup.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
I don't know how you came up with those statistics but please provide a link that is not a conservative blog. It's sounds as if you're using wordplay. Just because only 700 address the issue does not believe that most believe it is not the main problem. The only scientists who disagree have been those employed by the oil industry.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
As long as science requires a person to make initial assumptions, there will always be error introduced, and in a controversial topic such as global warming a scientists personal bias can have an effect on the outcome.
There is a large difference between stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is and can be easily isolated and tested) and stating that the global warming is a direct result of man made CO2 emissions (many assumptions need to be made, some variables will become constants, some factors will likely be ignored, etc. etc.). You have to factor in natural sources of CO2, the suns intensity, earths declination, albedo, ability to absorb CO2, effects of other greenhouse gases, etc. Some factors can only be estimated, we probably aren't even aware of some, and some don't have enough historical data. For example, we only have satellite imagery of the polar ice caps for 3-4 solar cycles, the conclusions that have been drawn from a sample size of three are astounding.
I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions even though we don't know what effect they have had or will have on our planet. At best we have done no harm, at worst we have done a lot of harm. It would be good to err on the side of caution.
The amount of blind faith placed in science (not by you, but the general population) disturbs me. It is becoming a religion in itself, which is exactly what it shouldn't be. It should encourage free thought, not "so and so is a scientist and he says this, therefore has to be true". "Science" has been wrong many times (usually due to new data on a subject emerging), it is not an absolute truth and should not be taken for granted.
As long as science requires a person to make initial assumptions, there will always be error introduced, and in a controversial topic such as global warming a scientists personal bias can have an effect on the outcome.
There is a large difference between stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is and can be easily isolated and tested) and stating that the global warming is a direct result of man made CO2 emissions (many assumptions need to be made, some variables will become constants, some factors will likely be ignored, etc. etc.). You have to factor in natural sources of CO2, the suns intensity, earths declination, albedo, ability to absorb CO2, effects of other greenhouse gases, etc. Some factors can only be estimated, we probably aren't even aware of some, and some don't have enough historical data. For example, we only have satellite imagery of the polar ice caps for 3-4 solar cycles, the conclusions that have been drawn from a sample size of three are astounding.
I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions even though we don't know what effect they have had or will have on our planet. At best we have done no harm, at worst we have done a lot of harm. It would be good to err on the side of caution.
The amount of blind faith placed in science (not by you, but the general population) disturbs me. It is becoming a religion in itself, which is exactly what it shouldn't be. It should encourage free thought, not "so and so is a scientist and he says this, therefore has to be true". "Science" has been wrong many times (usually due to new data on a subject emerging), it is not an absolute truth and should not be taken for granted.
I agree - excellent post.
I'm all for protecting the environment and doing my part - it makes perfect sense to do so. But I take issue with people like Mr. Gore telling me I'm "destroying the planet" by using an incandescent light bulb as they fly in their private jets, live in their energy-consuming mansions, enjoy a lavish lifestyle, etc.
If anyone needs to cut back on energy consumption and reduce their "carbon footprint", it's Mr. Gore and those like him, who are responsible for more so-called "damage" to the planet than I could ever possibly do.
Don't mistake this for a "class warfare" attack on my part. If someone has earned their money legitimately, I believe they should have the freedom to spend it how they wish. But when they start telling me - an average middle-class guy trying to put food on the table for his family and make ends meet - that driving an SUV is wrong, as they hop in their stretch limo, I just can't take them seriously.
I don't know how you came up with those statistics but please provide a link that is not a conservative blog. It's sounds as if you're using wordplay. Just because only 700 address the issue does not believe that most believe it is not the main problem. The only scientists who disagree have been those employed by the oil industry.
You need to work on reading comprehension (or possibly read referenced posts?) You read my post as 180 degrees opposite to you when actually our stances are aligned.
I'm all for protecting the environment and doing my part - it makes perfect sense to do so. But I take issue with people like Mr. Gore telling me I'm "destroying the planet" by using an incandescent light bulb as they fly in their private jets, live in their energy-consuming mansions, enjoy a lavish lifestyle, etc.
If anyone needs to cut back on energy consumption and reduce their "carbon footprint", it's Mr. Gore and those like him, who are responsible for more so-called "damage" to the planet than I could ever possibly do.
Don't mistake this for a "class warfare" attack on my part. If someone has earned their money legitimately, I believe they should have the freedom to spend it how they wish. But when they start telling me - an average middle-class guy trying to put food on the table for his family and make ends meet - that driving an SUV is wrong, as they hop in their stretch limo, I just can't take them seriously.
I would just point out that
1) He does purchase carbon offsets (an abstract action, but it is beneficial.)
2) You *are* destroying the planet (as are we all.) It is important that we be conscious of it.
3) His "energy consuming mansion" is a restored historic house that he inherited and so it does present a complex dilemma you have the luxury of avoiding. (Should we tear down existing historic sites or would it make better sense to build new buildings for greater efficiency and fix existing ones the best we can? If he sold the house to someone else who does not care about the environment (or the house) would it make the US housing stock greener? Would he be "better" in your eyes?)
3) I would bet my net worth that
a.) he lives a very green lifestyle for a person with his wealth and responsibilities.
b.) his carbon footprint per dollar he earns is hugely lower than yours
c.) his actions in his life have overall greatly greened the world simply by his influence on people, companies, and governments -- far greater than you.
We need to get a realistic perspective on the scale and importance of our own and other's actions in the world. In complaining about Gore, you sound exactly like Greenpeace complaining about Apple. (And BTW he drives a Prius, not a limo.)
Comments
I wonder how Apple does on that level?
On what authority? Common sense. The atmosphere is made of an unimaginable amount of individual particles, all swirling and whirling and influencing each other and influenced by outside factors. There is no way we have an accurate mathematical model of that without making massive simplification. The idea that in such a complex system, we can say with any certainty, that one gas: carbon dioxide is the source of all our problems is just epistemologically untenable.
Well we shouldn't let social pressure override our common sense about what man is and is not capable of mathematically and epistemologically.
You accuse me of being superstitious, and yet to me it seems you are the superstitious one, imbuing man with almost God-like powers of cognition, understanding and prediction.
I have no idea what 'epistemologically untenable' means, but it is often a thin line between stupidity and uninformed common sense. See under Big KC's post below.
Perhaps you should better educate yourself as well. There are 2 sides to this debate. Climate change is real. Whether or not it's significantly man-made is VERY much in doubt.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616db87e6
Groan. You give me a link to Senator Inhofe's web page!? Heaven help us.
I suppose this partial, tiny list of organizations must be uninformed when they say that global warming is anthropogenic: The scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, and the US, as well as the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, and American Chemical Society. And, I should add, the US EPA under George Bush.
As I said before, it is a thin line between stupidity and common sense. But you know what? There is no law against either, so go right ahead.
The new Web site also pushes Apple's recycling program, where users can learn how to send in their old iPod, iPhone or Mac. Users of handheld devices can fill out a form with their name and address and will be provided a prepaid mailer, while Mac owners can recycle their old system for free with the purchase of any new system in an Apple Store.
poorly written statement. 1. it leaves out the discount for bring an ipod to the store and 2, it implies you can drop off your computer. you can not. if you dig deeper you will see that the computers are all shipped. the question is who pays the shipping and recycling fees. if you just bought a computer (from Apple in store or online), they will pay. if not, you do. this probably has to do with that non refundable recycling fee you have to pay in many states now when you buy electronics.
Interesting. Jobs himself even speaks out in this article. He must really care about this himself although it should come as no surprise. It good to see Apple leading the front on environmental awareness.
actually it is something of a PR move. they are pushing to be more open about why they made some of the choices they did to stop some of the screaming. they get applause from the pro-environment types for the green side and those that are screaming 'down with the glass' see that there is a rhyme and reason to the screen choice even if it does have serious glare issues. if and when Apple can find a non reflective glass that is environmentally friendly and cost effective enough to use without more than a $30-50 surcharge to the customers they will announce it with great fanfare and shouting of how green it is
plus as others pointed out, these days being green is often more cost effective across the board. so we get practically a sleeve with our snow leopard, they dump the manuals for DVDs full of PDF for final cut studio etc
I'm sorry, but in NO way is the APPLETV environmentally green or progressive.
yes and no.
yes in that the idea behind the device is to promote digital media and thus reduce the plastic being produced and filling up houses and landfills.
no in that, as you suggest, it is not the best made device, using up perhaps too much energy, being made of a poor choice of materials etc.
and to those saying 'but it's only a tiny bit of energy', remember that you are thinking one device. TS is likely thinking of the impact of the single drop repeated a few thousand times.
What is so funny about that? Looks like a very useful app to me, and Apple has nothing along these lines. And, it's free.
but ask yourself this. how green is microsoft. how green is their offices and production centers. how green is the hardware they do produce and do they make any requirements on their partners to be green and be open about it.
could it be that Microsoft isn't really green at all and this is something of a smoke screen so folks don't do the math. or ask the questions
as for the software, just because Apple doesn't make and promote such an item doesn't mean that it isn't out there provided by someone else.
I thought it wasn't clear the carbon is the cause of climate change. This could all be a big waste of time by Apple.
Congratulations, you have been successfully confused by the multibillion dollar efforts of various vested interests and their attempts to confuse the issue.
Greenhouse gasses have been studied and understood for close to 40 years now. There is no controversy in the science community around the fact that Carbon (dioxide) emissions have warmed the planet. But just watch as all sorts of "sciency" folks will leap to dispute this with no scientific evidence whatsoever (just a paycheck for their "research" from an oil company.)
I think, after that dog wouldn't hunt anymore, the "scientists" from the cigarette companies must have gotten new jobs with oil companies.
I see they've got a big check mark next to mercury, yet the iMac, MacBook and 30" Cinema Display still ship with fluorescent backlighting. Maybe this means they're finally going to extend LED backlighting to the entire product line. That would be nice change
that would be great. They are long overdue. It was rumoured that the lack ACD updates was Apple waiting for Resolution Independence before adding higher PPI displays, but that ship has sailed with Leopard and Snow Leopard having such poor RI completion. The current popular theory is that making a 30? or bigger LCD display with a that size LED-backliht proved to be a problem; but we don?t really know. I do hope that they get updated soon with mDP connectors and power-passthroughs since notebooks do continue to grow in popularity.
As was shown at the time, nobody realized that Apple had a comprehensive environmental site in place at the time stating much of what is posted today, including product disclosures. And had the site up for years. Just like their ergonomic site, which it too has been around for over a decade.
Actually, I have always assumed that Greenpeace was just attacking Apple to get some free advertising.
Even a cursory examination of Apple's products at the time would have easily shown how much more green they were then existing alternatives. Apple's products were made of more valuable materials, were more recyclable, were used less packaging, less energy, lasted longer, iTMS etc. For God's sake, Greenpeace rated producer of "disposable" computers *Dell* greener than Apple. Same for HP, and IBM/Lenovo. This was done mostly on the strength of what these companies claimed they were planning to do in the future. Greenpeace actually valued these companies' promised actions for the future more than Apple's good actions of past and present.
What Apple really learned was to toot their own horn. If people don't notice the good things you are doing, you get no credit for doing them. Its good though. It will make all companies more conscientious about their actions.
1. Hewlett-Packard
2. Dell
4. Intel
5. IBM
12. Cisco Systems
14. Sun Microsystems
16. Adobe Systems
21. Motorola
23. Texas Instruments
31. Microsoft
69. Yahoo
79. Google
126. AT&T
133. Apple
Obviously, I picked out tech companies (skipped a few) to compare to Apple.
Clearly, like most "green" assesments, this is a friccking sham.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215522
Read the criteria and scoring system. Its 1/3 based on what the companies say they are doing or are planning to do, 1/3 based on the companies' perceived reputations, and only 1/3 based on actual impacts (but poorly measured) see here:
http://www.trucost.com/newsweek/howTrucostWorks.php
It also looks at company inputs/outputs in a stupid way. They look as sources, but not use. If they waste tons of energy but it's bought from wind farms, they are green, but if they carefully use a minimum of conventionally generated electricity, the company sucks (one reason Dell and HP do so well.)
Also notice that in the criteria and methodology they are not looking very hard at the life cycle of the products these companies produce. Hello! That's the main source of environmental issues a manufacturing company generates. "They make a wasteful product that ends up in a landfill, but gosh, their boardroom table is made of plantation harvested mahogany."
Apparently nobody noticed that Apple, almost singlehandedly, turned the manufacture, distribution, and use, and eventual disposal of music into ones and zeros and a flash of electricity. What's more important?
As I said before, it is a thin line between stupidity and common sense. But you know what? There is no law against either, so go right ahead.
So, the 700+ scientists who are not buying into global warming being a man-made, carbon-produced disaster are wrong, and you and Al Gore are right? 30 years ago we were told that another ice age was coming. Now it's the other way around. The liberal media sees to it that these dissenters are largely unheard from, and discredits them whenever possible. Gee, that's a big surprise.
It's all about the Benjamins. Gore profits mightily from his outrageous "carbon credits" nonsense (while living like the ultra-wealthy, over-consuming limousine liberal that he is). Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a money grab.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
I don't know if it's one of the most hilarious comments I've read or the most insane.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
Because we're not as strong and adaptable as we'd like to think.
The worry about climate change isn't for the planet's sake, it's for ours.
Climate change is good. Evolution only happens with change. The strong and adaptable win, the weak and un-adaptable lose. And the planet endures, regardless. That's the way it's been for eons. Why are we concerned about it now?
Yours is a common misrepresentation of natural selection ("survival of the fittest") as a promotion of the good ("strong and adaptable") and punishment of the bad ("weak and unadaptable.") In other words, you are conflating "survival of the fittest" with "survival of the best." But of course nature makes no such value judgments, only people do. It's what has come to be called "Social Darwinism" which is a seperate (and some would say debunked) concept which has no real relation to Darwin or the evolution of species.
When evolutionary pressure is put on a species, the whole population are stressed and suffers. Individuals who are lucky enough to have some slightly beneficial mutant character (which well may be a "weak and unadaptable" trait in slightly different circumstances) may be slightly more abel to survive and possibly reproduce in the new situation. But all the individuals suffer the stress.
Your idea is as ridiculous as praising the lucky single survivor of a massive carpet bombing attack, then ridiculing the hundreds of dead victims as "weak and unadaptable," and finally claiming, "Carpet bombing is a great thing because it makes us stronger."
So, the 700+ scientists who are not buying into global warming being a man-made, carbon-produced disaster are wrong, and you and Al Gore are right? 30 years ago we were told that another ice age was coming. Now it's the other way around. The liberal media sees to it that these dissenters are largely unheard from, and discredits them whenever possible. Gee, that's a big surprise.
It's all about the Benjamins. Gore profits mightily from his outrageous "carbon credits" nonsense (while living like the ultra-wealthy, over-consuming limousine liberal that he is). Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a money grab.
I'll answer that! Yup.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
I'll answer that! Yup.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
I don't know how you came up with those statistics but please provide a link that is not a conservative blog. It's sounds as if you're using wordplay. Just because only 700 address the issue does not believe that most believe it is not the main problem. The only scientists who disagree have been those employed by the oil industry.
I'll answer that! Yup.
Those scientists you cite are mostly unqualified to comment intelligently as experts on the issue (outside their expertise.) Of all the scientists who actually are experts in the field, only a very small minority (around 1-2%) take the stance you describe. But science isn't a poll, its a weighing machine, and anthropogenic global warming is what weighs true.
As long as science requires a person to make initial assumptions, there will always be error introduced, and in a controversial topic such as global warming a scientists personal bias can have an effect on the outcome.
There is a large difference between stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is and can be easily isolated and tested) and stating that the global warming is a direct result of man made CO2 emissions (many assumptions need to be made, some variables will become constants, some factors will likely be ignored, etc. etc.). You have to factor in natural sources of CO2, the suns intensity, earths declination, albedo, ability to absorb CO2, effects of other greenhouse gases, etc. Some factors can only be estimated, we probably aren't even aware of some, and some don't have enough historical data. For example, we only have satellite imagery of the polar ice caps for 3-4 solar cycles, the conclusions that have been drawn from a sample size of three are astounding.
I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions even though we don't know what effect they have had or will have on our planet. At best we have done no harm, at worst we have done a lot of harm. It would be good to err on the side of caution.
The amount of blind faith placed in science (not by you, but the general population) disturbs me. It is becoming a religion in itself, which is exactly what it shouldn't be. It should encourage free thought, not "so and so is a scientist and he says this, therefore has to be true". "Science" has been wrong many times (usually due to new data on a subject emerging), it is not an absolute truth and should not be taken for granted.
As long as science requires a person to make initial assumptions, there will always be error introduced, and in a controversial topic such as global warming a scientists personal bias can have an effect on the outcome.
There is a large difference between stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is and can be easily isolated and tested) and stating that the global warming is a direct result of man made CO2 emissions (many assumptions need to be made, some variables will become constants, some factors will likely be ignored, etc. etc.). You have to factor in natural sources of CO2, the suns intensity, earths declination, albedo, ability to absorb CO2, effects of other greenhouse gases, etc. Some factors can only be estimated, we probably aren't even aware of some, and some don't have enough historical data. For example, we only have satellite imagery of the polar ice caps for 3-4 solar cycles, the conclusions that have been drawn from a sample size of three are astounding.
I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions even though we don't know what effect they have had or will have on our planet. At best we have done no harm, at worst we have done a lot of harm. It would be good to err on the side of caution.
The amount of blind faith placed in science (not by you, but the general population) disturbs me. It is becoming a religion in itself, which is exactly what it shouldn't be. It should encourage free thought, not "so and so is a scientist and he says this, therefore has to be true". "Science" has been wrong many times (usually due to new data on a subject emerging), it is not an absolute truth and should not be taken for granted.
I agree - excellent post.
I'm all for protecting the environment and doing my part - it makes perfect sense to do so. But I take issue with people like Mr. Gore telling me I'm "destroying the planet" by using an incandescent light bulb as they fly in their private jets, live in their energy-consuming mansions, enjoy a lavish lifestyle, etc.
If anyone needs to cut back on energy consumption and reduce their "carbon footprint", it's Mr. Gore and those like him, who are responsible for more so-called "damage" to the planet than I could ever possibly do.
Don't mistake this for a "class warfare" attack on my part. If someone has earned their money legitimately, I believe they should have the freedom to spend it how they wish. But when they start telling me - an average middle-class guy trying to put food on the table for his family and make ends meet - that driving an SUV is wrong, as they hop in their stretch limo, I just can't take them seriously.
I don't know how you came up with those statistics but please provide a link that is not a conservative blog. It's sounds as if you're using wordplay. Just because only 700 address the issue does not believe that most believe it is not the main problem. The only scientists who disagree have been those employed by the oil industry.
You need to work on reading comprehension (or possibly read referenced posts?) You read my post as 180 degrees opposite to you when actually our stances are aligned.
I agree - excellent post.
I'm all for protecting the environment and doing my part - it makes perfect sense to do so. But I take issue with people like Mr. Gore telling me I'm "destroying the planet" by using an incandescent light bulb as they fly in their private jets, live in their energy-consuming mansions, enjoy a lavish lifestyle, etc.
If anyone needs to cut back on energy consumption and reduce their "carbon footprint", it's Mr. Gore and those like him, who are responsible for more so-called "damage" to the planet than I could ever possibly do.
Don't mistake this for a "class warfare" attack on my part. If someone has earned their money legitimately, I believe they should have the freedom to spend it how they wish. But when they start telling me - an average middle-class guy trying to put food on the table for his family and make ends meet - that driving an SUV is wrong, as they hop in their stretch limo, I just can't take them seriously.
I would just point out that
1) He does purchase carbon offsets (an abstract action, but it is beneficial.)
2) You *are* destroying the planet (as are we all.) It is important that we be conscious of it.
3) His "energy consuming mansion" is a restored historic house that he inherited and so it does present a complex dilemma you have the luxury of avoiding. (Should we tear down existing historic sites or would it make better sense to build new buildings for greater efficiency and fix existing ones the best we can? If he sold the house to someone else who does not care about the environment (or the house) would it make the US housing stock greener? Would he be "better" in your eyes?)
3) I would bet my net worth that
a.) he lives a very green lifestyle for a person with his wealth and responsibilities.
b.) his carbon footprint per dollar he earns is hugely lower than yours
c.) his actions in his life have overall greatly greened the world simply by his influence on people, companies, and governments -- far greater than you.
We need to get a realistic perspective on the scale and importance of our own and other's actions in the world. In complaining about Gore, you sound exactly like Greenpeace complaining about Apple. (And BTW he drives a Prius, not a limo.)