It's really impressive, you can browse records of companies participation in politics. Ho I would like that in my own country... You can be proud of that : all is documented.
Me too.
Contribution documentation at various levels of granularity here.
I still love Apple despite this moronic move. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.
I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.
Think I'm full of crap? Pull your head out of your collective BUTTS people if you are believing this global warming bullcrap. I'll be the first to admit it.... I used to buy into it myself. But it's a LOAD OF CRAP... all designed as a means to screw us all out of more of our money.
Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.
Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.
SPPI, The Science & Public Policy Institute. It was started by Lord Christopher Monkton... he used to be the science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Check out their CO2 report for Aug.... it's a whopping 33 pages of REAL INFORMATION..... that you need to understand.
If you're smart enough to READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion I did after looking at REAL SCIENCE... and not an emotionally charged joke like Al Gore, who I think couldn't pass a 3rd grade basic science class or test.
Stop grabbing your ankles America..... Your ignorance is not bliss, it's a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.
Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.
Z
From a quick bit of research, this doesn't look like a very good source.
Christopher Monckton has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications.
Furthermore, the SPPI website does not disclose any of it's funding. Something that always makes me skeptical.
In the period cited, less than a millenium ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now. What was that about manmade global warming again?
...
Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.
I just think it's quite sad that something that should be 100% about science and the subsequent findings has turned into this right wing - left wing drivel. If you think it's cyclic and it's going to do what it's going to do regardless of what we do you're a right winger; if we're the source of all evil in the world and we're going to burn ourselves into the ground you're a left winger. Seriously, WTF? Let's just be honest with ourselves here - there is plenty of data (some slanted, some not) on both sides of this SCIENTIFIC argument. This really shouldn't be up to political parties to pit us against our neighbors.
We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results. The last time we didn't double check we got ourselves stuck in a war - I'd like to think we're all (well, mostly all) level headed enough to think that you shouldn't go making policies without the evidence to back them up.
Sustainability studies are expensive and I can't imagine the time, money, manpower, and energy wasted by Apple coming up with their carbon footprint data.
As it has been mentioned many times in this thread, all of Apple's stuff is made in China, the largest polluter on the freaking planet. At one time within the last two years, they were averaging a new coal power plant every 18 days going into operation. Their coal plants have to have the scrubbers onsite but they do not have to work. They just have to be there.
SJ and Apple need to check themselves. Either you have a value or you don't and no one is going to respect this for a "value" stance.
This is America and if Apple wants to burn diesel 24/7 for no good reason fine. But don't act like you are all concerned when you obviously are not fully committed to taking your stance with great serious and not just where it helps you out.
Engineering and scientific advance have given us transport by land and air, the capacity and need to exploit fossil fuels which had lain unused for millions of years. One result is a vast increase in carbon dioxide. And this has happened just when great tracts of forests which help to absorb it have been cut down.
For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.
Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases?carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons?which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s?though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!
September 27, 1988
I'm paraphrasing, but I remember her saying, "you can't take millions of tons of carbon from down there, put it up there and not have something happen".
Regarding your first point, it's important to underscore the importance of scientists who are climatologists on these issues. Lots of deniers, contrarians, those more interested in proving their own points or PR offensives for special interests, etc. emerge without suitable credentials (or are gladly willing to be bought). Those with agendas are inherently magnetically attracted to the former for purposes of confirmation bias and are simply not interested.
It has been getting cooler since 2001 and the long term weather forecast is for cooler temperatures for the next ten years. Doesn't phase the manmade global warming advocates, just a blip they say.
There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.
It has been getting cooler since 2001 and the long term weather forecast is for cooler temperatures for the next ten years. Doesn't phase the manmade global warming advocates, just a blip they say.
There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.
Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.
Good night and hope you awaken with a surer footing on reality.
I still love Apple. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.
I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.
Think I'm full of crap?
Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.
Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.
READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion .
Stop grabbing your ankles Your ignorance is a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.
Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.
Z
Do you really think that with your adolescent tirade you change anything?
Do you really think that one website is absolutely right with what it publishes?
It's like giving a student the bible and tell him it's all we know about religion!
Fortunately, we look at a majority of scientists that somehow came to a conclusion that we have a climate change. Then again, there is a reason why they call it the "silent majority" - because the ignorant always are the ones who scream the loudest.
That's it folks - politics to the politicians. They don't seem to know anything better.
This is a tech site. Let's keep it that way. I come here to read exciting news about the field I love.
I don't come here to have perfectly nice and logical thinking techies turn into grumpy old men.
Please. It's enough that we have to deal with the occasional Balmer here.
I just think it's quite sad that something that should be 100% about science and the subsequent findings has turned into this right wing - left wing drivel. If you think it's cyclic and it's going to do what it's going to do regardless of what we do you're a right winger; if we're the source of all evil in the world and we're going to burn ourselves into the ground you're a left winger. Seriously, WTF? Let's just be honest with ourselves here - there is plenty of data (some slanted, some not) on both sides of this SCIENTIFIC argument. This really shouldn't be up to political parties to pit us against our neighbors.
I agree that it is ridiculous that such important issues become reduced to right/left rants. In that context, people become emotionally involved in their "side" regardless of what the evidence shows.
Quote:
We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate
Well, this is a bit of a revisionist position. The Bush administration was CLEARLY spoiling for an Iraq war and were clearly telling analysts to tell them what they wanted to hear. Look at the whole report on Iraq's searching for nuclear material. When an Wilson concluded that there was no truth to the alarming claims, the administration was so outraged, they outed his undercover CIA wife (repeatedly). See Valerie Plame. Of course, Wilson was right but...
Heck, I wasn't (and still am not) a specialist on mideast affairs, but it didn't make sense to me on the face of things at the time that Iraq was working with Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his fundamentalists hated rulers like Sadam almost as much as the US. There is no defense for Sadam (murderous despot and all) but women were educated in his country and the ruling class was largely secular. Just because they both said they hated America is hardly evidence that they were working together.
Quote:
and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results.
Yeah. It only took about 50 years to get scientists to agree that Smoking was dangerous. And it still isn't 100%. I read something last year where a scientists were theorizing that people who are predisposed to get lung cancer are also more likely to get addicted to smoking. The bottom line? They would have gotten cancer regardless of whether or not they started smoking...
So forget 100% Would you take 70%? 80%? We may be there already...
That's just the right thing to do. United States of Amnesia is so corrupt in every way just to make a buck. One day, all these millionaires and billionaires will perish with everyone else, and none is taking his/her money when they die.
Shame on US Chamber of Commerce. How can thinking people be so foolish because of money? It is incomprehensible how dumb these American companies can be. Greed and corruption, nothing else.
Apple has done the right! I support it and I will continue to patronize only companies that are doing the same.
Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.
You should seek more diverse sources of information, biological diversity is not the only kind of diversity that is good. But even reading New Scientist it is clear that there is no consensus, there are no known answers, the conclusions put forward tend to go along with the theory but with many caveats.
And one caveat is that New Scientist is funded in great part by the income that big science stories of the day attract, I am not attributing any malfeasance to them but you know scientists and publishers have to pay their bills too.
I've been looking at this for a decade and no longer believe manmade global warming is the problem it is made out to be. If it is a problem it is much slower acting than is presented, if it is a problem we could fix it within a decade or a generation at most. I am more concerned about things like loss of insects (esp bees) which are vital to the environment and the havoc that GM crops are creating all over the world. Manmade global warming is widely promoted to take our eyes of a more important ball.
Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.
Good night and hope you awaken with a surer footing on reality.
Now you have progressed from condescension to outright ad hominen attack, as you can't support your point of view with intelligent comment you lose the argument. And manmade global warming is an argument that can not be won except in hindsight so the best thing we can do is be sensible. Don't put so much crap in to our environment is number one, the tiny amounts of energy output of man compared with the sun, volcanoes etc is clearly way down the list of threats to the species or planet.
Comments
I totally agree with a greener apple
...
It's really impressive, you can browse records of companies participation in politics. Ho I would like that in my own country... You can be proud of that : all is documented.
Me too.
Contribution documentation at various levels of granularity here.
Im sorry, I know I shouldn't find ignorance funny, but...
In that context, it certainly is preferable to despair.
In the period cited, less than a millenium ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now. What was that about manmade global warming again?
Ahh, that would be: The Great Global Warming Swindle (We're sorry, but this video may not be available)
but there are clips on YouTube
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gre...arming+Swindle
See also:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...10462407994295
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...34802461518010
I still love Apple despite this moronic move. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.
I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.
Think I'm full of crap? Pull your head out of your collective BUTTS people if you are believing this global warming bullcrap. I'll be the first to admit it.... I used to buy into it myself. But it's a LOAD OF CRAP... all designed as a means to screw us all out of more of our money.
Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.
Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.
SPPI, The Science & Public Policy Institute. It was started by Lord Christopher Monkton... he used to be the science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Check out their CO2 report for Aug.... it's a whopping 33 pages of REAL INFORMATION..... that you need to understand.
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
If you're smart enough to READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion I did after looking at REAL SCIENCE... and not an emotionally charged joke like Al Gore, who I think couldn't pass a 3rd grade basic science class or test.
Stop grabbing your ankles America..... Your ignorance is not bliss, it's a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.
Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.
Z
From a quick bit of research, this doesn't look like a very good source.
Christopher Monckton has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications.
Furthermore, the SPPI website does not disclose any of it's funding. Something that always makes me skeptical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ilisation.html
In the period cited, less than a millenium ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now. What was that about manmade global warming again?
...
Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.
We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results. The last time we didn't double check we got ourselves stuck in a war - I'd like to think we're all (well, mostly all) level headed enough to think that you shouldn't go making policies without the evidence to back them up.
As it has been mentioned many times in this thread, all of Apple's stuff is made in China, the largest polluter on the freaking planet. At one time within the last two years, they were averaging a new coal power plant every 18 days going into operation. Their coal plants have to have the scrubbers onsite but they do not have to work. They just have to be there.
SJ and Apple need to check themselves. Either you have a value or you don't and no one is going to respect this for a "value" stance.
This is America and if Apple wants to burn diesel 24/7 for no good reason fine. But don't act like you are all concerned when you obviously are not fully committed to taking your stance with great serious and not just where it helps you out.
FYI I don't like Green Peace
For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.
Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases?carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons?which has led some[fo 4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s?though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain!
September 27, 1988
I'm paraphrasing, but I remember her saying, "you can't take millions of tons of carbon from down there, put it up there and not have something happen".
From a quick bit of research, this doesn't look like a very good source.
Christopher Monckton has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications.
Furthermore, the SPPI website does not disclose any of it's funding. Something that always makes me skeptical.
Both excellent points, the latter addressed here.
Regarding your first point, it's important to underscore the importance of scientists who are climatologists on these issues. Lots of deniers, contrarians, those more interested in proving their own points or PR offensives for special interests, etc. emerge without suitable credentials (or are gladly willing to be bought). Those with agendas are inherently magnetically attracted to the former for purposes of confirmation bias and are simply not interested.
deleted
There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.
It has been getting cooler since 2001 and the long term weather forecast is for cooler temperatures for the next ten years. Doesn't phase the manmade global warming advocates, just a blip they say.
There is no scientific consensus on manmade global warming, man has had little success at predicting weather apart from a few days or weeks at best. Predictions of manmade global warming are based upon computer models, the input data for such models is debatable and unverifiable, tweak input data a little and the results are easily tailored to suit agendas.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body, part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.
Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.
Good night and hope you awaken with a surer footing on reality.
I still love Apple. What makes it really funny is that all our Apple products are MADE IN CHINA.... the biggest emitter of CO2 on the freaking planet. So the statement or move is kind of rich since the anti-business cap n trade bill that will bend us all over to the tune of several THOUSAND DOLLARS a year..... won't have any effects on their production even if it were to go through. However, it would make it harder for us to buy their great computers.
I'll stand behind the Chamber at this point. A group that I've seen as completely useless with both of my own businesses.... however.... this is a good move on their part.
Think I'm full of crap?
Before you start arguing with me.... try EDUCATING YOURSELF.
Want to find some awesome information made by real, ACTUAL scientists and not some moron blowhard on one of the networks.... let me recommend this site to you.
READ..... you're smart enough understand what they're saying and maybe just come to the same conclusion .
Stop grabbing your ankles Your ignorance is a way to get SCREWED by people who really don't have your best interests at heart.
Use your BRAIN.... not your EMOTIONS..... and learn.
Z
Do you really think that with your adolescent tirade you change anything?
Do you really think that one website is absolutely right with what it publishes?
It's like giving a student the bible and tell him it's all we know about religion!
Fortunately, we look at a majority of scientists that somehow came to a conclusion that we have a climate change. Then again, there is a reason why they call it the "silent majority" - because the ignorant always are the ones who scream the loudest.
That's it folks - politics to the politicians. They don't seem to know anything better.
This is a tech site. Let's keep it that way. I come here to read exciting news about the field I love.
I don't come here to have perfectly nice and logical thinking techies turn into grumpy old men.
Please. It's enough that we have to deal with the occasional Balmer here.
I just think it's quite sad that something that should be 100% about science and the subsequent findings has turned into this right wing - left wing drivel. If you think it's cyclic and it's going to do what it's going to do regardless of what we do you're a right winger; if we're the source of all evil in the world and we're going to burn ourselves into the ground you're a left winger. Seriously, WTF? Let's just be honest with ourselves here - there is plenty of data (some slanted, some not) on both sides of this SCIENTIFIC argument. This really shouldn't be up to political parties to pit us against our neighbors.
I agree that it is ridiculous that such important issues become reduced to right/left rants. In that context, people become emotionally involved in their "side" regardless of what the evidence shows.
We deride Bush for going to war on intelligence that, at the time, the CIA said was 100% accurate
Well, this is a bit of a revisionist position. The Bush administration was CLEARLY spoiling for an Iraq war and were clearly telling analysts to tell them what they wanted to hear. Look at the whole report on Iraq's searching for nuclear material. When an Wilson concluded that there was no truth to the alarming claims, the administration was so outraged, they outed his undercover CIA wife (repeatedly). See Valerie Plame. Of course, Wilson was right but...
Heck, I wasn't (and still am not) a specialist on mideast affairs, but it didn't make sense to me on the face of things at the time that Iraq was working with Bin Laden. Bin Laden and his fundamentalists hated rulers like Sadam almost as much as the US. There is no defense for Sadam (murderous despot and all) but women were educated in his country and the ruling class was largely secular. Just because they both said they hated America is hardly evidence that they were working together.
and yet here we are yet again b!tching amongst each other over something that doesn't even have 100% agreeance from the scientific community. I think we should learn from our previous mistakes and if we're going to take drastic action even if we're 100% sure on something we should at least double check the results.
Yeah. It only took about 50 years to get scientists to agree that Smoking was dangerous. And it still isn't 100%. I read something last year where a scientists were theorizing that people who are predisposed to get lung cancer are also more likely to get addicted to smoking. The bottom line? They would have gotten cancer regardless of whether or not they started smoking...
So forget 100% Would you take 70%? 80%? We may be there already...
Shame on US Chamber of Commerce. How can thinking people be so foolish because of money? It is incomprehensible how dumb these American companies can be. Greed and corruption, nothing else.
Apple has done the right! I support it and I will continue to patronize only companies that are doing the same.
Yes, I've seen those. There are other factors to consider. Relevant to your point, I suggest these simplified tutorials here and here. Be sure to read the linked background information. I can provide much more detailed and technical information when you're ready.
You should seek more diverse sources of information, biological diversity is not the only kind of diversity that is good. But even reading New Scientist it is clear that there is no consensus, there are no known answers, the conclusions put forward tend to go along with the theory but with many caveats.
And one caveat is that New Scientist is funded in great part by the income that big science stories of the day attract, I am not attributing any malfeasance to them but you know scientists and publishers have to pay their bills too.
I've been looking at this for a decade and no longer believe manmade global warming is the problem it is made out to be. If it is a problem it is much slower acting than is presented, if it is a problem we could fix it within a decade or a generation at most. I am more concerned about things like loss of insects (esp bees) which are vital to the environment and the havoc that GM crops are creating all over the world. Manmade global warming is widely promoted to take our eyes of a more important ball.
.
Now, I think you're being intentionally dense. You're conflating climate with weather and sense with nonsense. Not that you care, but just so that I'm clear to you.
Good night and hope you awaken with a surer footing on reality.
Now you have progressed from condescension to outright ad hominen attack, as you can't support your point of view with intelligent comment you lose the argument. And manmade global warming is an argument that can not be won except in hindsight so the best thing we can do is be sensible. Don't put so much crap in to our environment is number one, the tiny amounts of energy output of man compared with the sun, volcanoes etc is clearly way down the list of threats to the species or planet.
.
Misinformed MUCH?
(thank you for teaching me how to enlarge
On this topic, you are utterly clueless, let alone 'misinformed.'
But neither ignorance nor stupidity is against the law, so go right ahead. Stew in your illiteracy. Some day, it'll catch up with you.
Sustainability studies are expensive .....
No, they are not. The protocols are now well-understood, and easily applied.
FYI I don't like Green Peace
I don't either, but that has nothing to do with the science and facts of climate change.
The IPCC is ..... part of the UN whose stated aim is one world government.
And there are monsters under your bed too, did you know that?