I don't pay much attention to any company's claims about future environmental plans. Or comparisons with how far they've come. I'm interested in how they're doing compared to competitors in the same industry right now. So yes, someone needs to do that for Apple and its competitors, but that may not be too easy - some companies may not make public critical information needed to give meaningful comparisons. I do commend Apple for making their systems energy efficient, highly recyclable, and for eliminating many toxic materials. And yes, for not requiring energy wasted on virus checking and drastically reducing the need for tech support. Not to mention reducing the amount of audio pollution caused by cursing users compared to Windows machines.
The problem with green peaces attack on Apple is that Apple was producing very green products well before green peaces attacks. Green peace had nothing to do with apple making the iMac or Mini power efficient for example. I just find it dispictable that green peace attacks a company that is already leading the industry simply because it lines their coffers.
Quote:
I'm curious about the issue of lead in solder. When you get rid of other toxins, you're left with the need for solder, and traditionally it's mostly lead. I understand that there were initiatives in Europe a few years ago to start widespread use of lead-free solder. The main problem with such solder, as I understand it, is that it has a higher melting temperature, making it difficult to use it without damaging electronic components.
Actually that is a minor concern. The problem is lead based solders where very reliable. The lead free replacements have a number of issues that cause problems. One of these is the growth of whiskers that lead to shorts.
The big problem here is that the EU banned lead for no good reason in electronics. It is not like the end user is exposed to the lead. It is a repetive problem with the envirnmental move with their knee jerk reactions based on loosely related real issues. Lead in water systems is a well known issue but you can't extend that issue to implicate lead in electronics. Lead in electronics is no more of a problem than it is in batteries, but their is no ban on lead acid batteries in cars.
Interestingly lead is only banned in consumer electronics. In medical or military equipment there is no ban, mainly because in either case you need long and reliable life.
Quote:
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple.
That is what started this thread.
Quote:
I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
In this case these demands are justified as green peace attacks Apple with questionable claims. Likewise the whole arguement that global warming exists or is man made is often based on very questionable science or science that has gone under any sort of peer review. When someone questions what you are saying, it isn't to piss you off but rather one of two things. One the want you to think about what you are offering up or two they don't want to take your word for it.
Quote:
I wish that the arguing posters would pause before posting and consider what outcome they're trying to achieve. Do you think that you're actually going to convince the opposing poster that you're right, for example, on the issue of whether human-caused global warming is a serious issue,
If it is indeed happening it would be a serious issue. The problem is there is no evidence to support the idea at all. A theory is not evidence in and of itself and the data we currently have doesn't back up the theory that global warming is happening or is man made.
Quote:
or whether Al Gore is a douchebag? All by posting to a thread on an Apple discussion forum?
Well if people don't stand up and allow themselves to be counted then they are just as responsible for this wreckless behaviour as the promoters of global warming. It is sort of like seeing a small child reaching out to touch a hot stove, as a mature individual you have a responsibility to shout out HOT. Maybe they stop or maybe the get burnt but you really can't ignore it.
Quote:
I really don't think so. You may be able to provide information useful to other readers. But then again, consider the venue - is this where anyone is going to get serious information on these issues?
Do you actually believe there is serious, un colored, information on this subject out there? If so offer it up, but I'd suggest being very careful because you could easily end up looking like a fool.
Quote:
If you are arguing a position, also consider whether your means of expression is self-defeating. For example, several topics can provoke flurries of "Obama's destroying our country, bringing socialism", often in the tone of children shouting in anger.
His own administration calls it socialism so you can't argue on that point. As to the sound of children have you looked at this composition?
Quote:
Does that work? Or just convince a reader that that position is supported by fools?
Look like it or not Obama is a fool, if you can't see that then I feel pity for you. When somebody looks at all the evidence that has been issued and says loudly these people are nuts, it is not being foolish, rather it is an attempt to bring balance to the arguement.
Quote:
My position is that if someone indicates affection for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or is intent on denying the scientific basis for human-caused global warming, there is absolutely no point in my ever responding.
This is very cute on your part, trying to tie a persons evaluation of the facts around global warming to the far right. That is extremely pathetic on your part. The reality is that good scientific discussion does not need a political slant at all. So I suspect you did so due to the weakness of the human cause global warming arguement.
Quote:
Nothing that I or anyone posting here could possibly say, or pointers to any number of impeccable references, would ever sway them one iota.
This use of the phrase "impeccable references" really bothers me as I've yet to see anything of the sort. Frankly it makes me think you are either gullible or trying to incite arguement.
Quote:
Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Well thanks to offering up a massive amount of useless banter.
As to the so called scientific evidence where are the peer reviews or the supporting data? If you are a scientist pursuing physics you are expected to support your theories with data and observations. Your paper is then made available to the larger community to be picked apart to find faults if any.
Contrast this with publically available data on global warming. It is locked away with no possibility of peer review. One so called scientist has even refused to release his temperature data and has been said to have objected because he feared people would find fault with the conclusions drawn from it. Is this good science?
Interestingly both the weather scientist and those focused on physics make use of computer models of complex systems. In many cases a physists can make very accurate predictions with their models. From what I can see we are lucky to get a weather prediction that is good for more than a few days and we are suppose to rely on projections years in the future. There is simply no evidence that the models used to predict global warming and it's human causes are accurate or even debugged.
Lastly we don't have a solid understanding of energy transfer from the sun. Without which we can really say much at all about the weather. For the most part it has been a cold summer around here, Astronomers will tell you that is due to the sun being extremely quiet right now. Astronomers however are conservative scientist so they are going to go overboard and declare the end of the earth. Declaring the end of the earth is possibly the environmentalist greatest error.
As to the so called scientific evidence where are the peer reviews or the supporting data? If you are a scientist pursuing physics you are expected to support your theories with data and observations. Your paper is then made available to the larger community to be picked apart to find faults if any.
Dave
This is simply not true. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies and in the top scientific journals, with data and analytical methods made publicly available for verification. The most comprehensive summary can be found in the "physical science basis" report of the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (the links to technical papers, methodology reports, supporting material, and citations can all be found there; it is a great place to get started.).
Or you may wish to go into the websites of top scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences etc. and do a search using phrases such as 'climate change,' or 'global warming.'
I'm all for planting more tree's etc....but i can't stand how these criminal's in politics use it as an excuse to tax the hell out of us.
When you mention to these inbreds that prior to computers, cars, the industrial age etc...Grapes were grown outside in the North East of England during Roman times and how Frost Fairs were held on the ice on the River Thames during the 16th and 18th centuries, they just don't want to know.
Makes me so mad.
I'd respect Apple a whole lot more if they didn't pander to environmental terrorism and just got on with it. But of course it's all about money...that's what it's always been about.
Why don't you start your own forum if all you want to do is hear yourself talk. The only thing remotely relevant here is the lie about Al Gore's carbon footprint, and it's ... you know, ... a lie.
Rush Limbaugh is not funny he's a fascist jerk. You are also not funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This is simply not true. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies and in the top scientific journals, with data and analytical methods made publicly available for verification. The most comprehensive summary can be found in the "physical science basis" report of the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (the links to technical papers, methodology reports, supporting material, and citations can all be found there; it is a great place to get started.).
Or you may wish to go into the websites of top scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences etc. and do a search using phrases such as 'climate change,' or 'global warming.'
For those of us that have been on the funding side of modern science in any field, we know that funding of research depends more on the biases of those that supply the funding than the quality of the science which is being proposed. While generally only a minor issue when this intersects with politically hot topics, like global warming, it leads to high bias in the funding cycle, and consequently in the review cycle as well. This is the current situation where proposals that challenge the current 'Commonly Accepted Knowledge' have miniscule chances of getting funding.
Indirect support of this thesis can easily be found in the actions and conclusion of the proponents themselves. Here are 4 examples.
1) It is now commonly cited by both politicians (like Gore) and proponents of man-made global warming that 'the science is settled'. This is an oxymoron on its face, especially for something as horrendously complex as the entire energy flux of a planet. One of the triumphs of science as a philosophy is that such matter are never settled and are alway open to challenge, and in fact challenge should be encouraged. If this had not be done int he past we would still be living on a flat earth (which was VERY settled) or a geo-centric system (also VERY settled).
2) Supporters of global-warming make certain that the fact that there are two VERY separate issues at play in the issue are ALWAYS convolved. The two issues are global warming and man-made. As wizard69 has pointed out we don't even have a good model of the coupling between the earth's environment and the Sun and, so far, the earth's temperature hasn't even wandered close to was is believed to be long-past extremes. The fact is the should be treated as separate issues. It is very very possible that there is real 'global warming' ongoing for entirely non-man-made reasons. But discussion and research into these paths are suppressed thought funding decisions.
3) Supports of global warming now, since the science has been 'settled', dismiss out of had, without discussion, any data which contradicts current predictions. For example see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html. It is now well accepted that one of the major predictions of the global warming crowd - temperature rise - has not occurred for over a decade. In fact cooling is occurring.
4) Despite almost universal agreement of proponents of global warming that we can't fully correct what has already happened and we WILL see damaging sea-level rises affecting a large number of large costal cities, none of the proponents have put mitigation on the agenda. If the theory is correct, mitigation (protecting those cities with levees, pumps, etc) is far more critical than incremental control at this time yet there is zero discussion of this, at least in the public forum.
A third of the ranking comes from "reputation" which, at best, is meaningless, and at worst skews the data egregiously.
Yes, reputation shouldn't matter. A company isn't green because it has a reputation for being good to the environment... it's green because of what it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP
There were also numerous references to reporting of initiatives and intentions, which, frankly, has very little to do with the "greenness" of a company.
I agree.
But I do think intentions are also important. There should be a rank for "promised green-ness", in contrast to "actual green-ness". And if they break their promises that's important to know too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP
I really think that this kind of information is important to a lot of consumers. It would be nice of somebody could come up with a comprehensive and meaningful auditing system.
I would like something to accurately show me the heavier polluters. Without going into the rest of the debate in this thread on whether there are actual problems or not - I do think it's useful to look at acting better for our environment either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
note that all the energy producers are at the bottom of Newsweek's list.
I almost think that's a useless statistic. The impact of generation should be counted against the people using it, not the energy producers. Of course factoring in WHICH energy a company uses (not just how much energy) would be a factor.
And I would like to know independently which energy producers are 'greener' - rather than just trust their self-reports.
For those of us that have been on the funding side of modern science in any field, we know that funding of research depends more on the biases of those that supply the funding than the quality of the science which is being proposed. While generally only a minor issue when this intersects with politically hot topics, like global warming, it leads to high bias in the funding cycle, and consequently in the review cycle as well. This is the current situation where proposals that challenge the current 'Commonly Accepted Knowledge' have miniscule chances of getting funding.
Just checking what you're saying...
You're saying that the research that's being done is not actually scientific. Rather, the funding is going to dubious scientific researchers who are more likely to find in favour of the prevailing beliefs.
Good science should find support (or not) for a hypothesis, whatever the original intent was.
btw: I don't know if the world is warming. I do believe we should curb our environmental impact as it will cause problems of some kind (if it isn't already).
Calm down, man. That said, let me address your weasel-y words and vacuous claims.
I am not arguing anything. I am just making a couple of points. The fact that you don't agree with them is fine.
Really? No one? Produce some evidence, please.
'Known to be' by whom? Provide some evidence. 'On average'? That's weasel-y. I am presuming Apple aspires to be better that than average. 'They've been designing.....' and others haven't? If you know that, provide some evidence.
No. I am saying that'll be a good thing for Apple. And, I am saying, do it against the best in the industry (and if Apple is that already, shout it from the rooftops).
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Really? Provide some - any - evidence.
Hopefully, you do now.
Almost all Apple computers have the EPEAT Gold and Energy Star 5.0 ratings.
Example being the MBP:
'Every MacBook Pro model has earned the highest rating of EPEAT Gold. The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, or EPEAT, evaluates the environmental impact of a product based on how recyclable it is, how much energy it uses and how it?s designed and manufactured. Few products achieve EPEAT Gold status ? and even fewer notebooks.'
Looking at the EPEAT website, they have a list of what products have received what ratings - and there are hardly any laptops on that list that aren't Apple.
Looking at the EPEAT website, they have a list of what products have received what ratings - and there are hardly any laptops on that list that aren't Apple.
What the heck are you talking about? Focusing on just the best ratings ('EPEAT Gold'), there are 268 laptop models listed, and every single major manufacturer - e.g., Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony for starters - is on that list.
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
I know this topic does cross over into the political arena a bit, but do you really have to use this forum to push your views? All it is going to do is turn this thread into a flame throwing contest.
Buy an Apple product and help save the planet from global warming..er, I mean "climate change"! It's been happening for billions of years, but now for some reason we have to stop it (as if we can).
Elaborate? From a person that would call it "questionable science"? Bloviate would be more appropriate. And, please don't request more of that!
Nice. Avoiding the question because you don't want to go there. And, you don't, because you have no clue. You couldn't elaborate if you wanted to. Pathetic.
I've always said this right here is the reason for those Nasty high gloss glass screens for the last 2 years- BLECH! EnvironmentL rating over function- THANK U AL GORE
I've never read anywhere that the glossy screens are the result of greening the monitor. I have only read that it was an esthetic choice (they do still sell matte screens, but you have to pay more.) I highly doubt that the matte coating contains toxics.
But I do agree that the glossy screens are fricking useless trash.
Apple has made a very big deal out of the fact that their packaging has gotten greener. Well I work for a reseller and I have to say that the way Apple ships laptops to dealers is completely ridiculous. EVERY laptop comes in a separate cardboard box, which is larger than the laptop box. Each laptop box has FOUR styrofoam corners suspending it inside the larger box. Yes, the products are well protected. But styrofoam? There is nothing you can do with it. It can't be recycled and the square shape makes them hard to re-use. We at least re-use foam peanuts in our outgoing packaging. Somebody needs to blow the whistle on this practice. Why not use recyclable plastic instead? Some internal hard drives that we buy come this way. We just put the plastic protectors in our co-mingled recycling bin.
Do you think it would be greener to get rid of the recyclable (yes, Styrofoam is recyclable) corners and then just replace broken laptops? By the way, if the end user has a brain they keep the packaging for the lifetime of the computer for moving or shipping. Apple's packaging is greener by comparison to their previous design and to that of their competitors because the materials are produced in a greener fashion, the materials are recyclable, the overall density of packing is far greater (important for shipping efficiency,) while the breakage has been reduced to practically nil.
It's a balance thing -- if it gets there green but nobody will buy it because the box is damaged, its not green!
I've never read anywhere that the glossy screens are the result of greening the monitor. I have only read that it was an esthetic choice (they do still sell matte screens, but you have to pay more.) I highly doubt that the matte coating contains toxics.
But I do agree that the glossy screens are fricking useless trash.
Where have you been ? they weren't selling matte screens in iMacs for 2 years and counting until this year when the 17" MBP was released. They they quietly slipped in a new 15" matte in June.
It's not that the matte coating contains toxins, it's that the added sheet of glass increases the percentage of greener (biodegradable) materials in the newer machines. For example - you have 2 indentical objects that are not so "green". NOw you add something to one of them- let's say glass- and bingo that product get's a better rating. It's all a big gimmick. Meanwhile you're producing an inferior, high-gloss, glare filled, product that no serious visual artist would ever use. Or any accountant for that matter either.
Where have you been ? they weren't selling matte screens in iMacs for 2 years and counting until this year when the 17" MBP was released. They they quietly slipped in a new 15" matte in June.
It's not that the matte coating contains toxins, it's that the added sheet of glass increases the percentage of greener (biodegradable) materials in the newer machines. For example - you have 2 indentical objects that are not so "green". NOw you add something to one of them- let's say glass- and bingo that product get's a better rating. It's all a big gimmick. Meanwhile you're producing an inferior, high-gloss, glare filled, product that no serious visual artist would ever use. Or any accountant for that matter either.
Yes, I've been around the whole time. Never heard this theory before though. Sounds very fishy to me (although I do think the glossy screens suck) especially since you can add a sheet of matte coated glass and get the same "green" effect you describe.
Do you have any documentation of your theory? Got a link to any facts about this? Everything I have read points to this as a flawed esthetic decision.
Comments
I don't pay much attention to any company's claims about future environmental plans. Or comparisons with how far they've come. I'm interested in how they're doing compared to competitors in the same industry right now. So yes, someone needs to do that for Apple and its competitors, but that may not be too easy - some companies may not make public critical information needed to give meaningful comparisons. I do commend Apple for making their systems energy efficient, highly recyclable, and for eliminating many toxic materials. And yes, for not requiring energy wasted on virus checking and drastically reducing the need for tech support. Not to mention reducing the amount of audio pollution caused by cursing users compared to Windows machines.
The problem with green peaces attack on Apple is that Apple was producing very green products well before green peaces attacks. Green peace had nothing to do with apple making the iMac or Mini power efficient for example. I just find it dispictable that green peace attacks a company that is already leading the industry simply because it lines their coffers.
I'm curious about the issue of lead in solder. When you get rid of other toxins, you're left with the need for solder, and traditionally it's mostly lead. I understand that there were initiatives in Europe a few years ago to start widespread use of lead-free solder. The main problem with such solder, as I understand it, is that it has a higher melting temperature, making it difficult to use it without damaging electronic components.
Actually that is a minor concern. The problem is lead based solders where very reliable. The lead free replacements have a number of issues that cause problems. One of these is the growth of whiskers that lead to shorts.
The big problem here is that the EU banned lead for no good reason in electronics. It is not like the end user is exposed to the lead. It is a repetive problem with the envirnmental move with their knee jerk reactions based on loosely related real issues. Lead in water systems is a well known issue but you can't extend that issue to implicate lead in electronics. Lead in electronics is no more of a problem than it is in batteries, but their is no ban on lead acid batteries in cars.
Interestingly lead is only banned in consumer electronics. In medical or military equipment there is no ban, mainly because in either case you need long and reliable life.
I like to read AppleInsider and similar sites for Apple-related information, and the discussion threads for additional insights. Particularly when certain contentious issues are raised, the discussion can range off topic with heated arguments back and forth. Green Peace's tactics are a relevant topic because of their previous attacks on Apple.
That is what started this thread.
I like seeing a good discussion of that issue. But I've noticed that whenever the topics like the environment (among others) comes up, we get raging arguments complete with competing references to web sites and demands to justify in detail and with backup research any statements.
In this case these demands are justified as green peace attacks Apple with questionable claims. Likewise the whole arguement that global warming exists or is man made is often based on very questionable science or science that has gone under any sort of peer review. When someone questions what you are saying, it isn't to piss you off but rather one of two things. One the want you to think about what you are offering up or two they don't want to take your word for it.
I wish that the arguing posters would pause before posting and consider what outcome they're trying to achieve. Do you think that you're actually going to convince the opposing poster that you're right, for example, on the issue of whether human-caused global warming is a serious issue,
If it is indeed happening it would be a serious issue. The problem is there is no evidence to support the idea at all. A theory is not evidence in and of itself and the data we currently have doesn't back up the theory that global warming is happening or is man made.
or whether Al Gore is a douchebag? All by posting to a thread on an Apple discussion forum?
Well if people don't stand up and allow themselves to be counted then they are just as responsible for this wreckless behaviour as the promoters of global warming. It is sort of like seeing a small child reaching out to touch a hot stove, as a mature individual you have a responsibility to shout out HOT. Maybe they stop or maybe the get burnt but you really can't ignore it.
I really don't think so. You may be able to provide information useful to other readers. But then again, consider the venue - is this where anyone is going to get serious information on these issues?
Do you actually believe there is serious, un colored, information on this subject out there? If so offer it up, but I'd suggest being very careful because you could easily end up looking like a fool.
If you are arguing a position, also consider whether your means of expression is self-defeating. For example, several topics can provoke flurries of "Obama's destroying our country, bringing socialism", often in the tone of children shouting in anger.
His own administration calls it socialism so you can't argue on that point. As to the sound of children have you looked at this composition?
Does that work? Or just convince a reader that that position is supported by fools?
Look like it or not Obama is a fool, if you can't see that then I feel pity for you. When somebody looks at all the evidence that has been issued and says loudly these people are nuts, it is not being foolish, rather it is an attempt to bring balance to the arguement.
My position is that if someone indicates affection for Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or is intent on denying the scientific basis for human-caused global warming, there is absolutely no point in my ever responding.
This is very cute on your part, trying to tie a persons evaluation of the facts around global warming to the far right. That is extremely pathetic on your part. The reality is that good scientific discussion does not need a political slant at all. So I suspect you did so due to the weakness of the human cause global warming arguement.
Nothing that I or anyone posting here could possibly say, or pointers to any number of impeccable references, would ever sway them one iota.
This use of the phrase "impeccable references" really bothers me as I've yet to see anything of the sort. Frankly it makes me think you are either gullible or trying to incite arguement.
Arguing back and forth leads to dozens of increasingly heated posts, making it harder to slog through to possibly useful posts on the main topic.
Well thanks to offering up a massive amount of useless banter.
As to the so called scientific evidence where are the peer reviews or the supporting data? If you are a scientist pursuing physics you are expected to support your theories with data and observations. Your paper is then made available to the larger community to be picked apart to find faults if any.
Contrast this with publically available data on global warming. It is locked away with no possibility of peer review. One so called scientist has even refused to release his temperature data and has been said to have objected because he feared people would find fault with the conclusions drawn from it. Is this good science?
Interestingly both the weather scientist and those focused on physics make use of computer models of complex systems. In many cases a physists can make very accurate predictions with their models. From what I can see we are lucky to get a weather prediction that is good for more than a few days and we are suppose to rely on projections years in the future. There is simply no evidence that the models used to predict global warming and it's human causes are accurate or even debugged.
Lastly we don't have a solid understanding of energy transfer from the sun. Without which we can really say much at all about the weather. For the most part it has been a cold summer around here, Astronomers will tell you that is due to the sun being extremely quiet right now. Astronomers however are conservative scientist so they are going to go overboard and declare the end of the earth. Declaring the end of the earth is possibly the environmentalist greatest error.
Dave
As to the so called scientific evidence where are the peer reviews or the supporting data? If you are a scientist pursuing physics you are expected to support your theories with data and observations. Your paper is then made available to the larger community to be picked apart to find faults if any.
Dave
This is simply not true. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies and in the top scientific journals, with data and analytical methods made publicly available for verification. The most comprehensive summary can be found in the "physical science basis" report of the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (the links to technical papers, methodology reports, supporting material, and citations can all be found there; it is a great place to get started.).
Or you may wish to go into the websites of top scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences etc. and do a search using phrases such as 'climate change,' or 'global warming.'
And may I add some additional video footage from a speech on energy by Al.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo
When you mention to these inbreds that prior to computers, cars, the industrial age etc...Grapes were grown outside in the North East of England during Roman times and how Frost Fairs were held on the ice on the River Thames during the 16th and 18th centuries, they just don't want to know.
Makes me so mad.
I'd respect Apple a whole lot more if they didn't pander to environmental terrorism and just got on with it. But of course it's all about money...that's what it's always been about.
You have been reported for Trolling.
What a load of off topic, negative crap.
Why don't you start your own forum if all you want to do is hear yourself talk. The only thing remotely relevant here is the lie about Al Gore's carbon footprint, and it's ... you know, ... a lie.
Rush Limbaugh is not funny he's a fascist jerk. You are also not funny.
This is simply not true. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies and in the top scientific journals, with data and analytical methods made publicly available for verification. The most comprehensive summary can be found in the "physical science basis" report of the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm (the links to technical papers, methodology reports, supporting material, and citations can all be found there; it is a great place to get started.).
Or you may wish to go into the websites of top scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences etc. and do a search using phrases such as 'climate change,' or 'global warming.'
For those of us that have been on the funding side of modern science in any field, we know that funding of research depends more on the biases of those that supply the funding than the quality of the science which is being proposed. While generally only a minor issue when this intersects with politically hot topics, like global warming, it leads to high bias in the funding cycle, and consequently in the review cycle as well. This is the current situation where proposals that challenge the current 'Commonly Accepted Knowledge' have miniscule chances of getting funding.
Indirect support of this thesis can easily be found in the actions and conclusion of the proponents themselves. Here are 4 examples.
1) It is now commonly cited by both politicians (like Gore) and proponents of man-made global warming that 'the science is settled'. This is an oxymoron on its face, especially for something as horrendously complex as the entire energy flux of a planet. One of the triumphs of science as a philosophy is that such matter are never settled and are alway open to challenge, and in fact challenge should be encouraged. If this had not be done int he past we would still be living on a flat earth (which was VERY settled) or a geo-centric system (also VERY settled).
2) Supporters of global-warming make certain that the fact that there are two VERY separate issues at play in the issue are ALWAYS convolved. The two issues are global warming and man-made. As wizard69 has pointed out we don't even have a good model of the coupling between the earth's environment and the Sun and, so far, the earth's temperature hasn't even wandered close to was is believed to be long-past extremes. The fact is the should be treated as separate issues. It is very very possible that there is real 'global warming' ongoing for entirely non-man-made reasons. But discussion and research into these paths are suppressed thought funding decisions.
3) Supports of global warming now, since the science has been 'settled', dismiss out of had, without discussion, any data which contradicts current predictions. For example see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html. It is now well accepted that one of the major predictions of the global warming crowd - temperature rise - has not occurred for over a decade. In fact cooling is occurring.
4) Despite almost universal agreement of proponents of global warming that we can't fully correct what has already happened and we WILL see damaging sea-level rises affecting a large number of large costal cities, none of the proponents have put mitigation on the agenda. If the theory is correct, mitigation (protecting those cities with levees, pumps, etc) is far more critical than incremental control at this time yet there is zero discussion of this, at least in the public forum.
A third of the ranking comes from "reputation" which, at best, is meaningless, and at worst skews the data egregiously.
Yes, reputation shouldn't matter. A company isn't green because it has a reputation for being good to the environment... it's green because of what it does.
There were also numerous references to reporting of initiatives and intentions, which, frankly, has very little to do with the "greenness" of a company.
I agree.
But I do think intentions are also important. There should be a rank for "promised green-ness", in contrast to "actual green-ness". And if they break their promises that's important to know too.
I really think that this kind of information is important to a lot of consumers. It would be nice of somebody could come up with a comprehensive and meaningful auditing system.
I would like something to accurately show me the heavier polluters. Without going into the rest of the debate in this thread on whether there are actual problems or not - I do think it's useful to look at acting better for our environment either way.
note that all the energy producers are at the bottom of Newsweek's list.
I almost think that's a useless statistic. The impact of generation should be counted against the people using it, not the energy producers. Of course factoring in WHICH energy a company uses (not just how much energy) would be a factor.
And I would like to know independently which energy producers are 'greener' - rather than just trust their self-reports.
For those of us that have been on the funding side of modern science in any field, we know that funding of research depends more on the biases of those that supply the funding than the quality of the science which is being proposed. While generally only a minor issue when this intersects with politically hot topics, like global warming, it leads to high bias in the funding cycle, and consequently in the review cycle as well. This is the current situation where proposals that challenge the current 'Commonly Accepted Knowledge' have miniscule chances of getting funding.
Just checking what you're saying...
You're saying that the research that's being done is not actually scientific. Rather, the funding is going to dubious scientific researchers who are more likely to find in favour of the prevailing beliefs.
Good science should find support (or not) for a hypothesis, whatever the original intent was.
btw: I don't know if the world is warming. I do believe we should curb our environmental impact as it will cause problems of some kind (if it isn't already).
Calm down, man. That said, let me address your weasel-y words and vacuous claims.
I am not arguing anything. I am just making a couple of points. The fact that you don't agree with them is fine.
Really? No one? Produce some evidence, please.
'Known to be' by whom? Provide some evidence. 'On average'? That's weasel-y. I am presuming Apple aspires to be better that than average. 'They've been designing.....' and others haven't? If you know that, provide some evidence.
No. I am saying that'll be a good thing for Apple. And, I am saying, do it against the best in the industry (and if Apple is that already, shout it from the rooftops).
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Really? Provide some - any - evidence.
Hopefully, you do now.
Almost all Apple computers have the EPEAT Gold and Energy Star 5.0 ratings.
Example being the MBP:
'Every MacBook Pro model has earned the highest rating of EPEAT Gold. The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, or EPEAT, evaluates the environmental impact of a product based on how recyclable it is, how much energy it uses and how it?s designed and manufactured. Few products achieve EPEAT Gold status ? and even fewer notebooks.'
http://www.apple.com/uk/macbookpro/environment.html
Looking at the EPEAT website, they have a list of what products have received what ratings - and there are hardly any laptops on that list that aren't Apple.
Looking at the EPEAT website, they have a list of what products have received what ratings - and there are hardly any laptops on that list that aren't Apple.
What the heck are you talking about? Focusing on just the best ratings ('EPEAT Gold'), there are 268 laptop models listed, and every single major manufacturer - e.g., Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony for starters - is on that list.
See: http://www.epeat.net/SearchResults.a...&ProductType=3
What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?
Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!
Gotta love him!
I know this topic does cross over into the political arena a bit, but do you really have to use this forum to push your views? All it is going to do is turn this thread into a flame throwing contest.
Gore, and Greenpeace should mind their own whacko business. Greenness is a ridiculous reaction to bunko science.
Nature does more damage to the earth than man could ever hope to imagine.
You are the arrogant one here.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1smoking.gif
You have been reported.
Thank you Al Gore INDEED!
Glossy screens halted my purchases and recommendation of Mac's to others.
It was a brilliant plan by Al Gore, absolutely brilliant!
Make computers a pain in the ass to use and people won't buy them! The EARTH WINS!! BRILLIANT!!
Meanwhile Al Gore uses THREE 30" MATTE monitors and a TV on all at once!
Must have hidden eyes all around his head or something.
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2251ce3f4f219...f3dd4cd5-500pi
Ask your doctor today if Prozac is right for you.
It's a marketing gimmick.
Really? Questionable science? Can you elaborate?
Elaborate? From a person that would call it "questionable science"? Bloviate would be more appropriate. And, please don't request more of that!
Elaborate? From a person that would call it "questionable science"? Bloviate would be more appropriate. And, please don't request more of that!
Nice. Avoiding the question because you don't want to go there. And, you don't, because you have no clue. You couldn't elaborate if you wanted to. Pathetic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf
I've always said this right here is the reason for those Nasty high gloss glass screens for the last 2 years- BLECH! EnvironmentL rating over function- THANK U AL GORE
I've never read anywhere that the glossy screens are the result of greening the monitor. I have only read that it was an esthetic choice (they do still sell matte screens, but you have to pay more.) I highly doubt that the matte coating contains toxics.
But I do agree that the glossy screens are fricking useless trash.
Apple has made a very big deal out of the fact that their packaging has gotten greener. Well I work for a reseller and I have to say that the way Apple ships laptops to dealers is completely ridiculous. EVERY laptop comes in a separate cardboard box, which is larger than the laptop box. Each laptop box has FOUR styrofoam corners suspending it inside the larger box. Yes, the products are well protected. But styrofoam? There is nothing you can do with it. It can't be recycled and the square shape makes them hard to re-use. We at least re-use foam peanuts in our outgoing packaging. Somebody needs to blow the whistle on this practice. Why not use recyclable plastic instead? Some internal hard drives that we buy come this way. We just put the plastic protectors in our co-mingled recycling bin.
Do you think it would be greener to get rid of the recyclable (yes, Styrofoam is recyclable) corners and then just replace broken laptops? By the way, if the end user has a brain they keep the packaging for the lifetime of the computer for moving or shipping. Apple's packaging is greener by comparison to their previous design and to that of their competitors because the materials are produced in a greener fashion, the materials are recyclable, the overall density of packing is far greater (important for shipping efficiency,) while the breakage has been reduced to practically nil.
It's a balance thing -- if it gets there green but nobody will buy it because the box is damaged, its not green!
I've never read anywhere that the glossy screens are the result of greening the monitor. I have only read that it was an esthetic choice (they do still sell matte screens, but you have to pay more.) I highly doubt that the matte coating contains toxics.
But I do agree that the glossy screens are fricking useless trash.
Where have you been ? they weren't selling matte screens in iMacs for 2 years and counting until this year when the 17" MBP was released. They they quietly slipped in a new 15" matte in June.
It's not that the matte coating contains toxins, it's that the added sheet of glass increases the percentage of greener (biodegradable) materials in the newer machines. For example - you have 2 indentical objects that are not so "green". NOw you add something to one of them- let's say glass- and bingo that product get's a better rating. It's all a big gimmick. Meanwhile you're producing an inferior, high-gloss, glare filled, product that no serious visual artist would ever use. Or any accountant for that matter either.
Where have you been ? they weren't selling matte screens in iMacs for 2 years and counting until this year when the 17" MBP was released. They they quietly slipped in a new 15" matte in June.
It's not that the matte coating contains toxins, it's that the added sheet of glass increases the percentage of greener (biodegradable) materials in the newer machines. For example - you have 2 indentical objects that are not so "green". NOw you add something to one of them- let's say glass- and bingo that product get's a better rating. It's all a big gimmick. Meanwhile you're producing an inferior, high-gloss, glare filled, product that no serious visual artist would ever use. Or any accountant for that matter either.
Yes, I've been around the whole time. Never heard this theory before though. Sounds very fishy to me (although I do think the glossy screens suck) especially since you can add a sheet of matte coated glass and get the same "green" effect you describe.
Do you have any documentation of your theory? Got a link to any facts about this? Everything I have read points to this as a flawed esthetic decision.