[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda...
Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
I believe that the term "global warming" was dropped because it caused confusion. The term did not imply that everywhere would be idyllic and cosy. It referred to aggregate temperatures and failed to highlight the cooling/flooding/extreme conditions elsewhere, hence the adoption of "climate change"
Yes there are companies that jump on any bandwagon that morphs into a gravy train, it does not mean that the concept is flawed though.
Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!
I agree with you. I do not have any objections to real, pure science of course.
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.
In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.
I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.
In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.
I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.
Kudos for lasting so long.
You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
.
there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.
Yes there is an argument about the cause.
Climitologist argue the rate of co2 due to industrialisation etc will push the climate over the top of past warm cool cycles and head into a permanet heat cycle
Others say prove it or so what.
Consequences of permanent warm cycle may affect areas of food production(have you seen the temps in the Midwest) and large coastal swaths( think southern florida, etc). Or worse.
some say prove it, so what, better than paying a carbon tax
In the end what does the risk of perminet warm cycle mean? Well, just as some question the climatologist models, the neysayers don't know the actual effects either.
In the aerospace world we use a risk analysis calculation- probability and consequences. what if there was 1 in1000, 1in 1000000 chance that to continue dumping co2 leads to out right extinction because we become like Venus. At what point in this calculation of odds is action required?
Take 7 billion people all soon to be dumping co2, like the industrialized world.... Is there a point where you say enough?
On the flip side, if efforts are taken to reduce co2(and no that does not mean live in hole or other straw man arguments)... These unknowns may be avoided or greatly reduced.
An interesting ironic aside, pollution restrictions may make things worse. Pollution particulates(think volcanoe ash) reflect sunlight! Can't win. I'm with solip... Essentially in the end there are too many people.
Back to topic... It would be nice if apple would explain how they or others should recycle these products.
Environmentalism is by nature a selfish pursuit. Nothing wrong with it, but let's just be clear where it's coming from.
A true environmentalist should not procreate and also consider committing suicide to hasten the demise of the human race since humans are the ones destroying the environment.
I think the issue of the battery being glued down does not prevent the aluminum from being recycled it just presents an obstacle to determining the weight of the metal to pay the private junk recycler. If Apple created their own recycling program they could work out the details of disassembling the device and separating the materials.
there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.
Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.
People saying that Apple is giving up being "green" are idiots.
Apple pulling out of the EPEAT doesnt mean their products are less recyclable since they have a free recycling program, you just have to take ur old equipment to an apple store and they will do it for free, thats more than most other electronic companies.
My guess is, they are pulling out simply because EPEAT is outdated and doesnt mix well with their prospects of the future, some may say that the ability to dissasemble one product to change one faulty component is equal to increase reusability, but that is not always true for all consumers, and more so when Apple offers these changes for free (when it's a known issue) or under guarantee.
If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.
You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.
By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.
Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.
That's why it's more accurate to call it climate change. It alters the climate patterns so not all areas will warm, just the average.
If you are in Sydney, forget temperature. Think sea level. That's rising every year, and the rise is accelerating. Not much noise in that signal. It just keeps rising...
I agree. Apple's integrated design doesn't satisfy the standard. I disagree though that gluing the battery to the case would make the case less environmentally friendly. It will still come out. Apple also sponsors several electronic recycling events around the Country every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Interesting. The cynic in me is wondering if Apple is pushing toward the more integrated design across all their Macs over the next year or so which would mean they will systematically starting rating lower (or not at all) on EPEAT which would make this move a pre-empetive strategy.
Note that on at least one of their pages they are already missing images related to EPEAT. That makes me wonder if it's a very abrupt change,
PS: If DaHarder agrees with my comment I'll know I'm on the wrong track. ????
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.
They would have died anyway. The problem with DDT was that mosquitoes were building resistance to it (yes, natural selection works), so they had to keep raising the quantity used. Meanwhile, the stuff doesn't biodegrade and it was accumulating in higher animals at increasing rates. It was lose-lose regardless, so it was banned.
If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.
You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.
By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.
I doubt Apple dumps the product. Apple recently paid for a huge event in Ann Arbor where people could drop off any electronic item. Twenty semi trucks worth were collected. Further, Apple paid for a environmental responsible company to salvage the materials that could be used and responsibly dispose of the rest.
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
The problem is people like you don't back up your view with anything tangible all while criticizing views held by others that at least does have some scientific basis. Science always involves taking data to formulate working theories. Further, science doesn't always understand how something works. For instance, radio waves are widely used in technology, however, why they do what they do is still not fully understood. Yet, the scientists utilize the information they have and work off their theories. Moreover, you do not always have time to fully understand something before action is needed.
As far as politicians go, global warming was first put forth by scientists not politicians. Speaking of politicians, Republicans in Texas recently suggested kids should not be taught cognitive skills like deductive reasoning as it might undermine their belief systems.
I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.
I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb.
I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb.
I believe I read a study about a year ago on a Wednesday in July about how the US energy costs per capita has been reduced. I don't know how much of this is paper related savings but I assume that overall efficiency in many industries are responsible even as we do move to more electronics in out everyday lives. I'll see if I can locate it...
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142386"]
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
I think that my favorite quotester, Zappa, said it best: "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
[" url="/t/151144/apple-pulls-products-from-government-backed-green-electronics-list/80#post_2142387"]
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.
This is very true. Indeed, the right words in-between should be much stronger: it should say, 'because of.'
The DDT ban probably killed more people than Stalin did.
Comments
Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
I believe that the term "global warming" was dropped because it caused confusion. The term did not imply that everywhere would be idyllic and cosy. It referred to aggregate temperatures and failed to highlight the cooling/flooding/extreme conditions elsewhere, hence the adoption of "climate change"
Yes there are companies that jump on any bandwagon that morphs into a gravy train, it does not mean that the concept is flawed though.
BTW We all cherry pick data to "prove" our point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Then that isn't science! The beauty of science is that you can always question the methods by which the info was derived. We are flawed. We make mistakes. We are biased even when we strive not to be. Science is the purity of discovering truth above all else with no agenda on the facts. A man can go in with an idea, with an assumed hypothesis, but if he is a truly scientific he will not let his emotions, feelings, religion, or anything else get in the way of the data. He will question his own methods. He will question his own results. He will test and retest and seek independent results to help build a case for his own findings. This is what I believe in! This is where I put my faith!
I agree with you. I do not have any objections to real, pure science of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.
In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.
I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.
Kudos for lasting so long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
BTW We all cherry pick data to "prove" our point.
We might, but a true scientist should not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
In a moment of weakness (my previous post) I tried to reply to you as an equal.
I am now rapidly drawing the conclusion that you are a fandroid. Perhaps in the pay of one of Apple's competitors; your motive being to make Apple owners look like narrow minded, sub-intelligent, xenophobic, obsessional children.
Kudos for lasting so long.
You are not my equal, since you deny that vast amounts of people have died directly because of DDT being banned and you have nothing to offer besides the rather juvenile and boring usual ad-hominem attacks that certain people resort to when they are participating in a discussion that is far above their pay grade.
Yes there is an argument about the cause.
Climitologist argue the rate of co2 due to industrialisation etc will push the climate over the top of past warm cool cycles and head into a permanet heat cycle
Others say prove it or so what.
Consequences of permanent warm cycle may affect areas of food production(have you seen the temps in the Midwest) and large coastal swaths( think southern florida, etc). Or worse.
some say prove it, so what, better than paying a carbon tax
In the end what does the risk of perminet warm cycle mean? Well, just as some question the climatologist models, the neysayers don't know the actual effects either.
In the aerospace world we use a risk analysis calculation- probability and consequences. what if there was 1 in1000, 1in 1000000 chance that to continue dumping co2 leads to out right extinction because we become like Venus. At what point in this calculation of odds is action required?
Take 7 billion people all soon to be dumping co2, like the industrialized world.... Is there a point where you say enough?
On the flip side, if efforts are taken to reduce co2(and no that does not mean live in hole or other straw man arguments)... These unknowns may be avoided or greatly reduced.
An interesting ironic aside, pollution restrictions may make things worse. Pollution particulates(think volcanoe ash) reflect sunlight! Can't win. I'm with solip... Essentially in the end there are too many people.
Back to topic... It would be nice if apple would explain how they or others should recycle these products.
A true environmentalist should not procreate and also consider committing suicide to hasten the demise of the human race since humans are the ones destroying the environment.
I think the issue of the battery being glued down does not prevent the aluminum from being recycled it just presents an obstacle to determining the weight of the metal to pay the private junk recycler. If Apple created their own recycling program they could work out the details of disassembling the device and separating the materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15
there is no argument about global warming, it is warming.
Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by h4z3
People saying that Apple is giving up being "green" are idiots.
Apple pulling out of the EPEAT doesnt mean their products are less recyclable since they have a free recycling program, you just have to take ur old equipment to an apple store and they will do it for free, thats more than most other electronic companies.
My guess is, they are pulling out simply because EPEAT is outdated and doesnt mix well with their prospects of the future, some may say that the ability to dissasemble one product to change one faulty component is equal to increase reusability, but that is not always true for all consumers, and more so when Apple offers these changes for free (when it's a known issue) or under guarantee.
If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.
You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.
By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Truthfully I'm starting to wonder about that, this year Sydney had one of the coldest summers since 1953 and even the one before that wasn't that warm.
That's why it's more accurate to call it climate change. It alters the climate patterns so not all areas will warm, just the average.
If you are in Sydney, forget temperature. Think sea level. That's rising every year, and the rise is accelerating. Not much noise in that signal. It just keeps rising...
I agree. Apple's integrated design doesn't satisfy the standard. I disagree though that gluing the battery to the case would make the case less environmentally friendly. It will still come out. Apple also sponsors several electronic recycling events around the Country every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Interesting. The cynic in me is wondering if Apple is pushing toward the more integrated design across all their Macs over the next year or so which would mean they will systematically starting rating lower (or not at all) on EPEAT which would make this move a pre-empetive strategy.
Note that on at least one of their pages they are already missing images related to EPEAT. That makes me wonder if it's a very abrupt change,
PS: If DaHarder agrees with my comment I'll know I'm on the wrong track. ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I'm sure that the millions who have died since the ban are also thankful.
They would have died anyway. The problem with DDT was that mosquitoes were building resistance to it (yes, natural selection works), so they had to keep raising the quantity used. Meanwhile, the stuff doesn't biodegrade and it was accumulating in higher animals at increasing rates. It was lose-lose regardless, so it was banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
If you need to guess, it means you don't know. If you don't know, it means Apple isn't being clear about their intentions.
You can give Apple your old machine for recycling, but we don't know what that actually means. Apple says nothing about their material recovery rates for given pieces of hardware. They could just dump it and nobody would be the wiser.
By being a part of EPEAT, Apple was making a clear statement. By walking out without explanations, they are obscuring their intentions. I see no reason to trust their generic corporate whitewash language of concern about the environment. Put up or shut up.
I doubt Apple dumps the product. Apple recently paid for a huge event in Ann Arbor where people could drop off any electronic item. Twenty semi trucks worth were collected. Further, Apple paid for a environmental responsible company to salvage the materials that could be used and responsibly dispose of the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
There are cases of "scientists" cherry picking data to suit their agenda and do they still even call it global warming? I believe that the propagandists now call it "climate change". In the 70's, propagandists were whining about global cooling. The planet goes through periods where it's both been cooler and warmer than now, long before the global warming alarmists and other ignorant people were ever born.
I do not deny that man-made pollution has some effect on the planet, but I do disagree with the extent and especially the political BS solutions and economic fascism that is being proposed by dishonest politicians and others. It is those people and their solutions that I do not like.
The problem is people like you don't back up your view with anything tangible all while criticizing views held by others that at least does have some scientific basis. Science always involves taking data to formulate working theories. Further, science doesn't always understand how something works. For instance, radio waves are widely used in technology, however, why they do what they do is still not fully understood. Yet, the scientists utilize the information they have and work off their theories. Moreover, you do not always have time to fully understand something before action is needed.
As far as politicians go, global warming was first put forth by scientists not politicians. Speaking of politicians, Republicans in Texas recently suggested kids should not be taught cognitive skills like deductive reasoning as it might undermine their belief systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I agree with you. And to be honest, I don't even believe that environmentalists should own any computers at all, or cars and a bunch of other modern inventions, if they claim to care about the environment or the planet. They should practice what they preach.
I'd say the opposite should be true. Since buying my Mac, my paper consumption has went way down to zero. So has my use of light, as I do most of my reading on the computer without lights. My computer uses for the whole year less electricity than a 60 watt light bulb.
God I miss Melgross!
appleinsider has become the tallest_skil channel. all crap, all the time.
I believe I read a study about a year ago on a Wednesday in July about how the US energy costs per capita has been reduced. I don't know how much of this is paper related savings but I assume that overall efficiency in many industries are responsible even as we do move to more electronics in out everyday lives. I'll see if I can locate it...
I think that my favorite quotester, Zappa, said it best: "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
This is very true. Indeed, the right words in-between should be much stronger: it should say, 'because of.'
The DDT ban probably killed more people than Stalin did.
PS: I did not see post #107 before posting ths.