Apple Resigns from U.S. Chamber of Commerce [political discussion]

[Doctor Q]

This is the thread for political discussion about the issue of climate change as it relates to the Apple Resigns from U.S. Chamber of Commerce over Climate Change Stance (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/05/apple-resigns-from-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-over-climate-change-stance/) news story. Posts about the controversial issue of climate change should be made here rather than in the News forum discussion thread.

Note that only forum members with a history of 100 counted posts can post in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

All opinions are welcome but they must be expressed with the terms of the forum rules. Non-political discussion is welcome in the parallel thread in the News forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[The Samurai]

Green peace must be wetting themselves over this news.

[crees!]

Apple is committeed to protecting the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world. We strongly object to transitioning the United States from First World status to Third World.

20 years ago it was global cooling. The planet is freezing. Now it's global warming. Since we've caught on to their plan of deception the subject has been changed to "climate change". Al Gore needs to look up and see there is something called the Sun, and what degree the Earth's axis is, etc.. before we're all bankrupt.

[mambodancer]

20 years ago it was global cooling. The planet is freezing. Now it's global warming. Since we've caught on to their plan of deception the subject has been changed to "climate change". Al Gore needs to look up and see there is something called the Sun, and what degree the Earth's axis is, etc.. before we're all bankrupt.

I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. For a recent article on this subject, please read the current issue of the Skeptical Enquirer. The scientific literature of 20 years ago did not, in fact, support global cooling. Just the opposite.

[Zombie Acorn]

Apple, although I love the company, hasn't always been the greenest of companies and I do believe it is part of their marketing campaign.

Asus scored much higher on EPA ratings, Dell and HP's averages were brought down slightly because they had so many different levels of offerings. They still had many gold stars.

[Beric]

Good. I have no idea about the climate change stuff but I do know that I like to live in a clean environment. I'd like to be able to breath clean air, eat healthy non-toxic food and drink clean water.

As would we all. However, the gas that plants need to survive and that humans expel and inhale, otherwise know as carbon dioxide, is not toxic or unclean. Additionally, the Earth is actually currently cooling (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html), and may continue to do so for the next 1-2 decades.

[paduck]

Climate change is not a "controversial social issue." It is a "controversial political issue." It might be called a "controversial scientific issue," although the science (based on the official position of the USG) is relatively well established.

A "controversial social issue" is something like abortion rights, gay rights/marriage, and prayer in school.

[Beric]

So wait, discussion of a scientific issue here at MR is now political? Haven't us skeptics been saying this on the issue the whole time? :rolleyes:

Well, might as well engage in the politics. There never was any science to man-made global warming. The goal has always been to bypass the science and get straight to the politics, exacting laws regulating carbon dioxide while covering our ears and saying "there is no debate". And when nearly every climate scientist has a conflict of interest, and would be financially disadvantages were man-made global warming proven wrong, it's clear why things are as they are.

[Redneck1089]

Still waiting for proof of GW. What a crock. Whatever helps everyone sleep at night.

[Beric]

I oppose this decision, just as I opposed Apple's support of Prop 8. Global warming has not yet been resolved scientifically, and the Chamber of Commerce correctly recognizes how much damage it would do to U.S. companies were legislation enacted.

[Redneck1089]

I oppose this decision, just as I opposed Apple's support of Prop 8. Global warming has not yet been resolved scientifically, and the Chamber of Commerce correctly recognizes how much damage it would do to U.S. companies were legislation enacted.

Thank you. Finally someone who really evaluates the situation, instead of everyone else in here praising Apple for something that elicits an emotional response as opposed to rational observation of scientific data.

[Beric]

It appears that opposing Apple at MR for this issue is political, but praising it is not. Explanation by mods, please? I tend to ignore the PRSI forum here at MR because liberals outnumber conservatives 20:1, and no meaningful discussion can be had. I felt my statement opposing Apple's decision was about as nonpolitical as you can get.

[Redneck1089]

I guess you thought wrong. I guess the mods are part of that majority...

[Detlev]

...There never was any science to man-made global warming.

And there never will be. Not because there is a lack of evidence but because "science" today is no longer a pure practice. It is a profit making industry in and of itself and therefore not immune to the corruptions of success so commonly reserved for other industries.

The goal has always been to bypass the science and get straight to the politics, exacting laws regulating carbon dioxide while covering our ears and saying "there is no debate". And when nearly every climate scientist has a conflict of interest, and would be financially disadvantages were man-made global warming proven wrong, it's clear why things are as they are.

Where is the evidence that this was the initial goal? I believe this would have taken a much different road if it had been established as such. I would also argue that it is obvious that conflicts of interest are prevalent on all sides of the debate and that perhaps truth is somewhere standing on the sideline.

[Doctor Q]

It appears that opposing Apple at MR for this issue is political, but praising it is not.
Would contrived examples help?
"Brilliant political move for Apple. " <-- ok in either thread
"Stupid decision by Apple, caving to special interests." <--- ok in either thread
"The planet is getting warmer and we have to fix it." <--- ok only in this thread
"Climate change legislation is unwarranted." <--- ok only in this thread

MacRumors has no opinion on this issue and does not moderate to promote or suppress opinions. If you are not sure whether your post is about climate change or about Apple's business moves, post in this thread.

If political discussions are one-sided in this forum due to the composition of our membership then political discussions in news threads would be similarly one-sided, for the same reason. We've separated specific political discussions from news stories before. Our regular members can still participate in either or both thread but this keeps the hit-and-run trolls out of the main news discussion, for the benefit of both members and site visitors reading the news story.

[tofagerl]

I oppose this decision, just as I opposed Apple's support of Prop 8. Global warming has not yet been resolved scientifically, and the Chamber of Commerce correctly recognizes how much damage it would do to U.S. companies were legislation enacted.

You mean opposition of prop 8, right? Yes meant you were against gay marriage. If Apple were pro prop 8, I have some thinking to do about my next laptop purchase!

[powers74]

Good job I just hit 6092 or whatever, otherwise I guess I'd be locked out of the elite discussion.

Anyway, as others have pointed out I love how the praise for Apple page gets the spotlight and the real debate gets tossed into a corner where only MR "6492"s & up are eligible to participate. Interesting.

Anyway, this says it all:

"5. The Chamber’s position on the role of technology in addressing these challenging issues:

American business is the single biggest investor in clean technology. The Chamber has routinely supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of these technologies. Our Institute for 21stCentury Energy dedicated an entire chapter of its Transition Plan for Securing America's Energy Future to increasing sources of renewable energy in our transportation and electricity sectors. We supported all of the technology provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and has promoted their funding since the passage of these laws."


I am just as supportive of taking care of our planet as anyone, but the Global Warming - err "Climate Change" nonsense is just a bunch of political BS that amounts to nothing more than new tax legislation and government control.

I firmly believe that there is enough awareness of the need for global environmental stewardship in the public mind that progress will be made in grand time. There is no legislation that any government can pass that will hasten this process. On the contrary, it is likely to stifle innovation and progress - especially in the long run (it might seem to do a lot of good in the first couple years) - and cause more detriment than benefit. All the while taxing trade to the point businesses cannot make a profit.

[aristobrat]

You mean opposition of prop 8, right? Yes meant you were against gay marriage. If Apple were pro prop 8, I have some thinking to do about my next laptop purchase!
Apple donated $100,000 to fight Prop 8.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=31899

[jessica.]

Good job I just hit 6092 or whatever, otherwise I guess I'd be locked out of the elite discussion.

Anyway, as others have pointed out I love how the praise for Apple page gets the spotlight and the real debate gets tossed into a corner where only MR "6492"s & up are eligible to participate. Interesting.

Anyway, this says it all:



I am just as supportive of taking care of our planet as anyone, but the Global Warming - err "Climate Change" nonsense is just a bunch of political BS that amounts to nothing more than new tax legislation and government control.

I firmly believe that there is enough awareness of the need for global environmental stewardship in the public mind that progress will be made in grand time. There is no legislation that any government can pass that will hasten this process. On the contrary, it is likely to stifle innovation and progress - especially in the long run (it might seem to do a lot of good in the first couple years) - and cause more detriment than benefit. All the while taxing trade to the point businesses cannot make a profit.

Finally someone with enough sense to see through what I consider nothing more than a political PR stunt.
Watch the stock prices kids.

[Sky Blue]

I clicked on this topic to see how long the "global warming is made up" would take to start. First reply!

I tend to ignore the PRSI forum here at MR because liberals outnumber conservatives 20:1, and no meaningful discussion can be had.

Maybe it's because conservatives can't put forward a decent argument other than "socialism!"/"teh gays will get us"/"I herds it on Fox news".

Your avatar makes me smile though :)

[Zombie Acorn]

I clicked on this topic to see how long the "global warming is made up" would take to start. First reply!



Maybe it's because conservatives can't put forward a decent argument other than "socialism!"/"teh gays will get us"/"I herds it on Fox news".

Your avatar makes me smile though :)

I am actually fairly surprised, usually its 1 person against 15 on here. :eek: I am a fence sitter on climate change, give me more data I am not yet convinced. Also I want to wait another decade to see where we are at.

Either way I think this is another way for Apple to cut its way into the "green" sector. Awesome for PR these days.

[tofagerl]

Apple donated $100,000 to fight Prop 8.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=31899

Phew! I really didn't want to stop loving Apple products.

[Thomas Veil]

If you're looking for an organization that combines business with good citizenship, don't look to your nearby Chamber of Commerce. When government gets in bed with corporate interests, the Chamber of Commerce is what typically gets 'em a room at hourly rates. (They also put the quarters in the vibrating bed, but that's another story.)

I also can't help but notice how quickly this guy's claim, that global warming is on temporary hiatus, is being turned into "there is no global warming." I'm so glad everyone here knows more than the scientific community. I'm also glad you realize that the scientific community is corrupted by profit motive, whereas the corporate community is obviously not. :rolleyes:

Based on what is in the article, I applaud the move by Apple.

[Full of Win]

Apple is so full of...

For example... what releases less CO2 into the air per pound of cargo?
a. container ship from China
b. cargo jet from China?

If you picked A, give yourself a star!

Now, what method did I get my last shipment from Apple? Yep, Cargo jet from China, to Alaska to the central United States.

Oh, and if Apple is so concerned about gases...then why do they have their CEO fly around in a private jet to all parts of the globe, when a passenger jet is far less wasteful, relative to the amount of materials it contains.

Personally, my opinion is that any changes that man makes is small, and the change we might be seeing are from normal processes of the Earth. If Apple wants to fly jets around and be wasteful.. that is their choice. However, to claim they 'care', yet do activities that counter their alleged concern is BS.


I'm sure the mine-numbed people out there will give this threat a positive click, without doing a thimble-full of critical thinking .

[miloblithe]

As would we all. However, the gas that plants need to survive and that humans expel and inhale, otherwise know as carbon dioxide, is not toxic or unclean. Additionally, the Earth is actually currently cooling (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html), and may continue to do so for the next 1-2 decades.

Do you realize that the article you linked to deliberately misrepresents the presentation by Prof. Mojib Latif? The referenced study he worked on posits that:

...these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Anyone thinking that his presentation is evidence against climate change and the overall trend of warming simply a) hasn't actually looked at the study and/or b) doesn't understand it.

[Bubba Satori]

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/al-gore-plane.gif

[zap2]

Global warming has not yet been resolved scientifically.

Thats about as true as saying "gravity as theory hasn't been yet resolved scientifically"

Its just wrong, the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming. Its happening

[bobber205]

Maybe someday making more money in the immediate won't be as important as preserving a healthy planet for our future. Even if climate change isn't really happening, the worst that happens is business lose some money in the short term. They'll adapt and become likely even more profitable in the future.

Our society needs to learn to put off the good of now for the better of later.

[Zombie Acorn]

Thats about as true as saying "gravity as theory hasn't been yet resolved scientifically"

Its just wrong, the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming. Its happening

The difference is gravity is an observation, we have taken it upon ourselves to decide that we created global warming. I imagine over the next few decades this will slowly die out. Only time will tell and the rationale for changing to more environmental technologies is pointless to me, it just needs to be done.

[leekohler]

I oppose this decision, just as I opposed Apple's support of Prop 8.

Just as charming as usual, I see. Gotta make sure to keep them homos in their place! :rolleyes: Don't worry, you're going to lose eventually- on this, and global climate change.

[bobber205]

The difference is gravity is an observation, we have taken it upon ourselves to decide that we created global warming. I imagine over the next few decades this will slowly die out. Only time will tell and the rationale for changing to more environmental technologies is pointless to me, it just needs to be done.


No one made up global warming. The cause and effects have been researched. Gravity is obvious in our everyday lives. I don't understand how the CPU in my desktop computer works but I know it's not magic too.

[Zombie Acorn]

No one made up global warming.

Surely someone proposed the idea. (Probably rolling in money right now).

The cause and effects have been researched.

Not to my standards, I want more historical data and I want to see how close trends run to the models that have been projected into the future.



Gravity is obvious in our everyday lives. I don't understand how the CPU in my desktop computer works but I know it's not magic too.

Human contributions to global warming aren't on a parallel to how your computer works.

[brendu]

ive read alot of scientific journals on this issue and i gotta say i disagree with apples reason for their decision (im sure al gore has way more to do with it than steve jobs) but i agree 100% with their desire to build greener products and hope they can innovate in ways to create new sources of energy that actually make practical sense.

[bobber205]

Surely someone proposed the idea. (Probably rolling in money right now).



Not to my standards, I want more historical data and I want to see how close trends run to the models that have been projected into the future.




Human contributions to global warming aren't on a parallel to how your computer works.

We don't have the historical data! You're asking for the impossible. We've put out more carbon dioxide that any point in history. There's no comparable data sets available.

[hulugu]

Surely someone proposed the idea. (Probably rolling in money right now).



Not to my standards, I want more historical data and I want to see how close trends run to the models that have been projected into the future.




Human contributions to global warming aren't on a parallel to how your computer works.

I think you're missing the point about gravity. Currently, we have a working model of gravity based on observations and experiments, but we don't entirely understand gravity and it's effects, but we accept that gravity exists because when you push the potted plant off the counter, it falls to the earth. However, we couldn't confirm that objects would fall at the exact same rate regardless of mass, until we went to the moon.

Thus, I'd expect the theory of anthropogenic climate change to follow a similar model, except that unlike gravity, there's a socio-economic/political reason not to accept the models regardless of how good they are. Part of this has to do with the complexity of climate and weather, the massive number of variables that interplay, etc. We shouldn't expect a smoking gun, just as we don't have a smoking gun for nearly any other science beyond the innately observable. We don't know how light works, but we do know how to make a light-bulb and a laser. We don't know exactly how the climate works, but we can still put together pretty good models that suggest when you put billions of tons into the atmosphere, something is going to change.

We have historical data that continues to prove the models based on 100,000 year-old ice cores, we have models that suggested the Antarctic was getting warmer and once we were able to get more data, we realized not only was it not cooling, but actually was warming. The model said this was true and now observation from satellites has proven it so. What else can you reasonably expect from the theory?

As for Apple pulling out of the Chamber of Commerce, over the last few years Apple has worked hard to develop a 'green effort' which, as I understand it, far surpasses those of either Dell or Asus because of the incorporation of real-world methods rather than promises.

Apple's reacting to a either corporate ethos or its customers, and I don't see how protecting our air and water—PCBs, for example, are highly toxic, likely to cause cancers and developmental disorders—is a bad thing. The most "green" MacBook is cheaper than the one from two years ago, so just what is the problem again?

[Zombie Acorn]

I think you're missing the point about gravity. Currently, we have a working model of gravity based on observations and experiments, but we don't entirely understand gravity and it's effects, but we accept that gravity exists because when you push the potted plant off the counter, it falls to the earth. However, we couldn't confirm that objects would fall at the exact same rate regardless of mass, until we went to the moon.

And once again its something that we observe, not something we contribute to. Gravity would still exist if we vanished from the earth.


Thus, I'd expect the theory of anthropogenic climate change to follow a similar model, except that unlike gravity, there's a socio-economic/political reason not to accept the models regardless of how good they are. Part of this has to do with the complexity of climate and weather, the massive number of variables that interplay, etc. We shouldn't expect a smoking gun, just as we don't have a smoking gun for nearly any other science beyond the innately observable. We don't know how light works, but we do know how to make a light-bulb and a laser. We don't know exactly how the climate works, but we can still put together pretty good models that suggest when you put billions of tons into the atmosphere, something is going to change.

We have historical data that continues to prove the models based on 100,000 year-old ice cores, we have models that suggested the Antarctic was getting warmer and once we were able to get more data, we realized not only was it not cooling, but actually was warming. The model said this was true and now observation from satellites has proven it so. What else can you reasonably expect from the theory?


How about a climate trend that follows the models/data being pushed out for future predictions? I'll wait and see for myself, like I said its not the end of the world if we switch to more green tech, we should be heading that way anyways. Also I can study gravity by myself, I can't study whether or not my CO2 output is going to warm the world. CO2 outputs are going to continually rise so if the theory is true then we will see for ourselves as the end result will be eminent.

[FreeState]

Apple donated $100,000 to fight Prop 8.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=31899

Microsoft just donated the same amount to stop overturning civil right in WA state. Both are doing the right thing. Civil rights for all!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/05/microsoft-donates-100000-to-approve-r-71

[Full of Win]

I'm a huge Apple fan and always will be.

..but there has to be an ulterior motive to this story. Perhaps some tax regulation or other dispute, and Apple is using the environmental angle as the official reason to get out of the Chamber of Commerce, while in the background there is something else?


"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists." - Michael Crichton

Motive: Apple hopes that people who do not think will applaud them like trained seals clapping for fish.

[janitorC7]

Thats about as true as saying "gravity as theory hasn't been yet resolved scientifically"

Its just wrong, the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming. Its happening

I'm not one who necessarily believes that global warming does not exist, but, I'm going to have to call you out on this one.

To say that the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming would be to ignore a huge number of scientists (well known scientists, and not a small number of them either) who do not believe in anthropogenic global "climate change". The Science and Environmental Policy Project offers a very logical explanation. Simply that for the last 2 Billion years the earth has been emerging from an ice age. They offer that the average temperature of the earth is in fact arround 150 degrees F. They explain that the recent surges and fluctuations in climate is due to the same exponential increases that the earth has felt for over a Billion years (and that we are simply feeling the compound effects).

Regardless of stance on anthropogenic global climate change, its really a moot point. Believe or not, I feel that all would agree that we need to take good care of our planet. If warming does not exist, its still clear that we are artificially influencing with the carbon cycle which can lead to a eventual eutrophication of nitrogen causing acid rain and other secretions of nitric acid in our top soil.

I think that businesses have a responsibility to their investors. I believe that all individuals have a responsibility to be careful stewards to the planet. I do not believe that these are mutually exclusive principals, I believe that both need to be taken on context. Essentially, with a stronger economy companies can afford to be environmentally conscious. I believe that if we force accelerated legislation at companies it would hurt their ability to make strong environmental decisions in the future. (especially with the global recession, it is important that we consider which issue is most pressing).

JC7

[hulugu]

And once again its something that we observe, not something we contribute to. Gravity would still exist if we vanished from the earth.

Unless you're dealing with quantum interactions, this doesn't matter, you can still make observations and accumulate data.

How about a climate trend that follows the models/data being pushed out for future predictions?

So, what kind of timeline do you think is reasonable?

Also I can study gravity by myself, I can't study whether or not my CO2 output is going to warm the world.

Well, you can study gravity up to a point, basically to Newton's experiments, but we've surpassed the ability for an individual to "test" gravity without either a significant amount of math or some very large, very expensive instruments. You can also make observations about the influx of weather and climate by say drilling for ice cores in glaciers, tree rings, fossil specimens, or by checking the Ph of ocean water. You could also observe, for example, the sudden rise of the Bark Beetle around Santa Fe, NM and it's deleterious effects on Pinon Trees and the relationship of a higher average temperature and fewer freezes with the Beetle's success.

CO2 outputs are going to continually rise so if the theory is true then we will see for ourselves as the end result will be eminent.

So, we're supposed to wait until it's already happened and then we'll have our answer? This could be a foolish thing to do.

[Zombie Acorn]

Unless you're dealing with quantum interactions, this doesn't matter, you can still make observations and accumulate data.



So, what kind of timeline do you think is reasonable?



Well, you can study gravity up to a point, basically to Newton's experiments, but we've surpassed the ability for an individual to "test" gravity without either a significant amount of math or some very large, very expensive instruments. You can also make observations about the influx of weather and climate by say drilling for ice cores in glaciers, tree rings, fossil specimens, or by checking the Ph of ocean water. You could also observe, for example, the sudden rise of the Bark Beetle around Santa Fe, NM and it's deleterious effects on Pinon Trees and the relationship of a higher average temperature and fewer freezes with the Beetle's success.



So, we're supposed to wait until it's already happened and then we'll have our answer? This could be a foolish thing to do.

Its not foolish if we are pushing green tech anyways, thats one thing that most people miss about my argument, although I don't wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea that we are heating our globe up one factory at a time I also don't want to be breathing in smog, drinking unclean water, or even using fossil fuels when we have an abundant source of energy from the sun/wind/water.

On the other hand if we push too hard we could send our economy into another freefall, and when people are out of the job thats not a good thing to do.

As for the reasonable timeline, I would give it another 20-30 years observation, until that time I would be giving huge tax incentives/grants to all solar research, if we can make it to the moon/mars I am pretty sure we can get an efficient solar panel working.

[powers74]

Look, weather it's real or not (I doubt humans have much to do with it if it is), let's just not legislate and tax ourselves into a swampy ditch we can't escape from. It's happening, and it's happening at a rapidly increasing pace, and it flies in the face of everything this country was founded on.

[Zombie Acorn]

Look, weather it's real or not (I doubt humans have much to do with it if it is), let's just not legislate and tax ourselves into a swampy ditch we can't escape from. It's happening, and it's happening at a rapidly increasing pace, and it flies in the face of everything this country was founded on.

Unfortunately many corporations have been fairly bad societal members and have only worried about their bottom line. Corporations who continue to operate this way should be fined just like I would if I started to dump my trash on your front lawn. I am not saying we should straight up tax their carbon output, but certain industries need to get on the ball with more efficient tech.

[hulugu]

Its not foolish if we are pushing green tech anyways, thats one thing that most people miss about my argument, although I don't wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea that we are heating our globe up one factory at a time I also don't want to be breathing in smog, drinking unclean water, or even using fossil fuels when we have an abundant source of energy from the sun/wind/water.

On the other hand if we push too hard we could send our economy into another freefall, and when people are out of the job thats not a good thing to do.

As for the reasonable timeline, I would give it another 20-30 years observation, until that time I would be giving huge tax incentives/grants to all solar research, if we can make it to the moon/mars I am pretty sure we can get an efficient solar panel working.

Let me qualify, it would be foolish to wait 20-30 years and do nothing until we have better data.

I agree with you, I think there's a distinct advantage to "green" technologies without the greater concern about global warming. I think we can create an energy policy that doesn't sabotage the economy and I think we'll find that we can use our imagination and innovation to build a better place to live.

Unfortunately many corporations have been fairly bad societal members and have only worried about their bottom line. Corporations who continue to operate this way should be fined just like I would if I started to dump my trash on your front lawn. I am not saying we should straight up tax their carbon output, but certain industries need to get on the ball with more efficient tech.

This is why I think the *idea* of Cap'n'trade is so interesting. It's an attempt, although poorly implemented, to create a market for carbon usage. It's not supposed to be a tax, per se, but a market that allows companies like Apple sell their carbon savings to someone else. It's an attempt to use market forces to control our usage of carbon.
The idea may ultimately be flawed, but I wonder what that says about the market's ability to deal with pollution. If we can't do it with the market, we'll have to do it with taxes and legislation.

[cohibadad]

Apple should stay in the business they know something about (ie Computers) and **** about destructive policies like bogus climate change and homo marriages. +1 US Chamber of Commerce for not bowing to bogus pressure -1 Apple for blustering over bogosity. If Microsoft opposes sham legislation I'll buy Win 7.

[mambodancer]

You just engaged in classic fallacious reasoning. (Anyone remember the actual name for this?)

So classic that you forgot what the fallacious reasoning was? How about in your case, "Arguing from Ignorance?"

But, just to be fair, here is a link to Skeptics Guide list of logical fallacies:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

[bobber205]

I'm not one who necessarily believes that global warming does not exist, but, I'm going to have to call you out on this one.

To say that the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming would be to ignore a huge number of scientists (well known scientists, and not a small number of them either) who do not believe in anthropogenic global "climate change". The Science and Environmental Policy Project offers a very logical explanation. Simply that for the last 2 Billion years the earth has been emerging from an ice age. They offer that the average temperature of the earth is in fact arround 150 degrees F. They explain that the recent surges and fluctuations in climate is due to the same exponential increases that the earth has felt for over a Billion years (and that we are simply feeling the compound effects).

Regardless of stance on anthropogenic global climate change, its really a moot point. Believe or not, I feel that all would agree that we need to take good care of our planet. If warming does not exist, its still clear that we are artificially influencing with the carbon cycle which can lead to a eventual eutrophication of nitrogen causing acid rain and other secretions of nitric acid in our top soil.

I think that businesses have a responsibility to their investors. I believe that all individuals have a responsibility to be careful stewards to the planet. I do not believe that these are mutually exclusive principals, I believe that both need to be taken on context. Essentially, with a stronger economy companies can afford to be environmentally conscious. I believe that if we force accelerated legislation at companies it would hurt their ability to make strong environmental decisions in the future. (especially with the global recession, it is important that we consider which issue is most pressing).

JC7

From wiki.
The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is an Arlington, Virginia, United States-based advocacy group founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer [1]. The group disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1]

Ahahahahahhaahahahahahah. That is priceless.

[Zombie Acorn]

This is why I think the *idea* of Cap'n'trade is so interesting. It's an attempt, although poorly implemented, to create a market for carbon usage. It's not supposed to be a tax, per se, but a market that allows companies like Apple sell their carbon savings to someone else. It's an attempt to use market forces to control our usage of carbon.
The idea may ultimately be flawed, but I wonder what that says about the market's ability to deal with pollution. If we can't do it with the market, we'll have to do it with taxes and legislation.

The problem is the market is artificially imposed by the government so its already a tax compared to what we are used to, and it will definitely drive up our costs for many products, something we really don't need right now.

We already pay farmers out here to NOT grow anything on their land which is kind of weird in my mind.

I don't see a viable system that wouldn't be political suicide, thats why I advocate huge tax incentives/grants to renewable energy sources, if the money is there that is where everyone will go. The only other alternative that I think would work (and not work because the next candidate would get votes to do away with it) is to hike gas prices artificially.

[hulugu]

The problem is the market is artificially imposed by the government so its already a tax compared to what we are used to, and it will definitely drive up our costs for many products, something we really don't need right now.

We already pay farmers out here to NOT grow anything on their land which is kind of weird in my mind.

I don't see a viable system that wouldn't be political suicide, thats why I advocate huge tax incentives/grants to renewable energy sources, if the money is there that is where everyone will go. The only other alternative that I think would work (and not work because the next candidate would get votes to do away with it) is to hike gas prices artificially.

Well, there's no way to create a market for a thin air without some kind of taxation system in place, even one with tax incentives/grants will be artificial.
Hiking gas prices would be the most direct way, but that's also political suicide and another form of taxation—arguably one more likely to hurt the middle class than cap'n'trade which will distribute costs more evenly.

[Creibold]

Read people, read. This is a PR stunt. Don't watch the boob tube, or commercials, actually read the scientific journals that are coming out. They tell quite the opposite tail then what you think. This is for "eco-freindly" status. Which is sad, because in almost all instances, "being green" doesn't mean "green" as in the environment, it's talking about their pocket book, in which the company at hand saves a ton of money. It disgusts me.

[bobber205]

The problem is the market is artificially imposed by the government so its already a tax compared to what we are used to, and it will definitely drive up our costs for many products, something we really don't need right now.

We already pay farmers out here to NOT grow anything on their land which is kind of weird in my mind.

I don't see a viable system that wouldn't be political suicide, thats why I advocate huge tax incentives/grants to renewable energy sources, if the money is there that is where everyone will go. The only other alternative that I think would work (and not work because the next candidate would get votes to do away with it) is to hike gas prices artificially.

I know it's worse know but it's not like there would be a situation where this would be liked at all.

[Zombie Acorn]

I know it's worse know but it's not like there would be a situation where this would be liked at all.

When people have jobs and the economy is drifting along fairly well they tend not to care as much, in fact green initiatives are often seen as good and moral things to do. When people have lost their job and are uncertain about the economic future and you tell them you are essentially going to raise the prices on many products and services watch out.

Theres a reason that a large divide among Americans has suddenly appeared and it has everything to do with the economy going in the trash, many don't have jobs and they are pissed. People like Glen Beck take advantage of this to rally them under all types of issues and voila, political war.

[janitorC7]

From wiki.


Ahahahahahhaahahahahahah. That is priceless.

Okay, is that really all you got from what I wrote?

That specific organization may be a little sketchy, truth be told, I picked a random one that had backed that theory, I can name you some others if you so want. But, question being, can you disagree with my general principals?

JC7

[MagnusVonMagnum]

It's too bad they don't take a stand on actual harmful chemicals that companies like themselves still use instead of a crusade against the gas that every one of us breathe out constantly and that plants use during the day to make food and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. The fact that the Earth has been getting colder the past 7 years as sun spot activity has subsided also seems to elude most climatologists that seem to think that the Earth's temperature is soley due to the atmosphere content of C02 and not the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun itself. And yet Nobel Prize winners like Al Gore seem to gearing up to make huge profits from the so-called "global warming" (now redubbed "Climate Change" since the Earth has been cooling for seven years).

Yes, it's easy for many companies to take a stance against breathing, but harder for them to stop polluting the ground with actual dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer and brain damage, among other things.

[nickarmadillo]

Good. I have no idea about the climate change stuff but I do know that I like to live in a clean environment. I'd like to be able to breath clean air, eat healthy non-toxic food and drink clean water.
LOLZ

Who knew Al Gore posted on Macrumors?

[Full of Win]

The energy used to make the MacBook Pro I'm gleefully typing on right now, in all likelihood, came from DIRTY COAL ENERGY in China.

This is from US Deparmt of Energy (link below)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/images/China-pie_chart2.gif

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html


I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears though, as people will gush with praise for Apple. without asking questions like - how about the energy used to make Apple produce...is it 'clean'

[.Andy]

Look, weather it's real or not
This typo is the high point of the thread :D.

[Aron Peterson]

It was bad enough that Al 'Inside Trader' Gore was on Apple's board and the company kept capitulating to Greensleaze over PVC and BFRs (both are safe and essential). Now that Apple has jumped on a bandwagon that will increase government monitoring of our private lives and redistribute billions of dollars in welfare payments to corrupt undemocratic regimes I will no longer be buying Apple products. The iPhone app I was developing which would have made a good buck for Apple is now off the cards. I'll port it to Microsoft devices.

I'm not happy about an innovative company falling in line with the grandest fraud played on humanity in modern times.

[.Andy]

I'm not happy about an innovative company falling in line with the grandest fraud played on humanity in modern times.
There's a PRSI thread for this political talk. Please pop over and continue to meat out your interesting thesis. I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that the scientific community has orchestrated such a massive scam.

[Aron Peterson]

There's a PRSI thread for this political talk. Please pop over and continue to meat out your interesting thesis. I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that the scientific community has orchestrated such a massive scam.

I was a believer and activist for over a dozen years before I realized it. The scientific community didn't orchestrate a scam, politicians and a handful of journalists, CEOs and scientists played into each other's hands and capitulated to threats made by political activists. At the end of the day they saw big dollar signs for themselves and a chance to implement more regulation.

[.Andy]

I was a believer and activist for over a dozen years before I realized it. The scientific community didn't orchestrate a scam, politicians and a handful of journalists, CEOs and scientists played into each other's hands and capitulated to threats made by political activists. At the end of the day they saw big dollar signs for themselves and a chance to implement more regulation.
So you've got no evidence at all. Just an appeal to authority logical fallacy and a fantastic conspiracy theory.

[iBlue]

I was a believer and activist for over a dozen years before I realized it. The scientific community didn't orchestrate a scam, politicians and a handful of journalists, CEOs and scientists played into each other's hands and capitulated to threats made by political activists. At the end of the day they saw big dollar signs for themselves and a chance to implement more regulation.

Yes, they probably did see dollar signs and opportunity but that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem going on.

[.Andy]

Yes, they probably did see dollar signs and opportunity but that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem going on.
There are no big dollar signs for scientists for studying climate change. Scientist's get a specified wage (which is appalling for the hours they work) and grant money which has extremely stringent specifications on how they spend it. To claim that scientists are orchestrating a fraud based on any financial incentive is simply untrue. The ability for them to obtain further funding is dependent on them publishing work that is backed up by hard objective data. Which gets scrutinised at every step of the way.

[iBlue]

There are no big dollar signs for scientists for studying climate change. Scientist's get a specified wage (which is appalling for the hours they work) and grant money which has extremely stringent specifications on how they spend it. To claim that scientists are orchestrating a fraud based on any financial incentive is simply untrue. The ability for them to obtain further funding is dependent on them publishing work that is backed up by hard objective data. Which gets scrutinised at every step of the way.

No, you're right. I am in no way implying I think scientists are orchestrating a fraud. Quite the contrary. To deny climate change is just idiotic and ignoring the mountains of evidence, as it were. I wasn't even really referring to scientists when I replied to Aron Peterson but I suppose it could have come across that way. I think there are some folks (Marketing, CEOs, politicians, etc) who see an opportunity to profit and get good PR from jumping on the 'green' bandwagon. That may or may not be a good thing anyway depending on the situation. I was pointing out that even if there are shady people trying to profit on ecological means, that doesn't mean there isn't an ecological problem.

[.Andy]

No, you're right. I am in no way implying I think scientists are orchestrating a fraud.
Sorry iBlue I was commenting independently of your post and I realise you were speaking broadly. There is no doubt that people make money from climate change (as they do from denying it) but to try and implicate scientists in this is dishonest. To further attempt to implicate science in some massive conspiracy theory is nuts. My reply was more directed at the poster you quoted as well whom unfortunately doesn't have enough posts to continue in PRSI.

I was pointing out that even if there are shady people trying to profit on ecological means, that doesn't mean there isn't an ecological problem.
This is an awesome sentence that people should take note of.

[Aron Peterson]

Yes, they probably did see dollar signs and opportunity but that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem going on.

There isn't a real climate problem going on. A real climate issue is something like naturally or industrially contaminated rivers and lakes. A false climate issue is that the planet is 'catastrophically' warming (or cooling) and that man is doing it and can solve it by regulation.

The climate catastrophe only exists in computer models that have been fed erroneous data, incomplete simulations and at times fraudulent data. Dr John R Christy points this out (and he's damn good at what he does)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ml9zs9aZQ

He also points out that if all climate regulation and carbon trading were to come into effect, the difference it would make to global temperatures by the end of the century would be -0.07 degrees centigrade. You read that number correct and experts on all sides of the debate have agreed (obviously some were reluctant). The cost of the regulation though would be trillions of dollars which would be better of staying in the hands of the wealth producers than being taken by governments and carbon traders who would simply spend it on expanding their powers and influence.

The newly discovered controvery surrounding Yamal tree data conclusively proves a fraud has occured. If only we knew years ago when data was requested but witheld.

The Chamber of Commerce wanted to take the EPA to court over their position that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. They were asked to prove this in a legal case before proceeding with regulation but as usual, such as with Gore and others, a public debate is not welcome.

[iBlue]

^ I know the concepts of your stance, I simply don't agree.

Sorry iBlue I was commenting independently of your post and I realise you were speaking broadly. There is no doubt that people make money from climate change (as they do from denying it) but to try and implicate scientists in this is dishonest. To further attempt to implicate science in some massive conspiracy theory is nuts. My reply was more directed at the poster you quoted as well whom unfortunately doesn't have enough posts to continue in PRSI.
I thought that may be the case but I definitely didn't want to confuse people. Call it not wanting to be associated with "that" crowd.

This is an awesome sentence that people should take note of.
Aw, shucks. Thanks! :o :) It happens on occasion.

[MorphingDragon]

The energy used to make the MacBook Pro I'm gleefully typing on right now, in all likelihood, came from DIRTY COAL ENERGY in China.

This is from US Deparmt of Energy (link below)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/images/China-pie_chart2.gif

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html


I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears though, as people will gush with praise for Apple. without asking questions like - how about the energy used to make Apple produce...is it 'clean'

IMO, it seems a bit hypocritical for 'green' companies like Apple to be doing business with China. Come on, at least in Japan, they have workers who actually still have rights and the components/QC are of higher quality.

日本は驚くばかりであるo
(Japan FTW)

[Aron Peterson]

There are no big dollar signs for scientists for studying climate change. Scientist's get a specified wage (which is appalling for the hours they work) and grant money which has extremely stringent specifications on how they spend it.

This is not correct. Scientists operating larger and larger projects have their salaries increased and can fritter money away from projects to cover their expenses. And then of course there's things like this which are not uncommon:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/nasa-goddard-climate-scientist-charged-in-nepotism-money-scheme/

Not to mention that since many scientists are government employees they have no problem with their employers imposing themselves on the public more and more.

The Yamal affair that is being revealed right now, and not even mentioned by mainstream media outlets who have ridden the gravy train, is summed up here in the Financial Times. Keep an eye on this one as it is a developing story:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988

[ribbonthecat]

Climate change can't be proven scientifically, because there is no way to create a control in a scientific study. But just because it can't be "proven" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Fossil fuels are by definition a limited resource. If we follow purely free market principles, replacements for fossil fuels will not come until scarcity drives up the price of fossil fuels, making renewable alternatives economically viable. But there will not be a magic button that we push. If we wait until scarcity drives up energy costs, we will face years of economically crippling energy prices.

But if we alter the market now, by cap and trade or a direct carbon tax (the latter makes a lot more sense), it will allow us to develop renewable energy resources before we run out of fossil fuels. There are a lot of arguments that creating a new energy infrastructure will in fact help, rather than hurt, the economy, by creating new manufacturing, installation, and maintenance jobs.

So, even if you think that climate change is a hoax (and if you do, I think you're a fool), it still makes sense, economically, to implement a cap and trade program, or directly tax carbon emissions.

[MorphingDragon]

This is not correct. Scientists operating larger and larger projects have their salaries increased and can fritter money away from projects to cover their expenses. And then of course there's things like this which are not uncommon:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/nasa-goddard-climate-scientist-charged-in-nepotism-money-scheme/

Not to mention that since many scientists are government employees they have no problem with their employers imposing themselves on the public more and more.

The Yamal affair that is being revealed right now, and not even mentioned by mainstream media outlets who have ridden the gravy train, is summed up here in the Financial Times. Keep an eye on this one as it is a developing story:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988

There's stuff all scientists that do it for the science anymore. There were a ton of them in the classical ages. Any that are left are usually hidden away in Universities.

To be fair though, THE ONION is probably more fair on people than the "standard media".

Oh yea, Good for Apple, having a brain and more generic compliments. TBH, its a surprise that such a big company like Apple still has a soul.

[iBlue]

Aron Peterson - You have your opinions, I have mine. Discussing it further with you could result in these posts being moved to the political forum, which you do not yet have access to.

[.Andy]

There isn't a real climate problem going on. A real climate issue is something like naturally or industrially contaminated rivers and lakes. A false climate issue is that the planet is 'catastrophically' warming (or cooling) and that man is doing it and can solve it by regulation.
You've certainly shifted the goalposts now. First you're claiming that climate change is a all-encompassing fraud from of scientists to government, and now you're shifting to the assertion that if it's not catastrophic it's not a climate change problem. A demonstrably false statement.

The climate catastrophe only exists in computer models that have been fed erroneous data, incomplete simulations and at times fraudulent data. Dr John R Christy points this out (and he's damn good at what he does)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ml9zs9aZQ
Interesting videos. It's not until the 3rd video that Christy speaks. And this is still shifting the goalposts. Criticising data is what scientists do. He doesn't disagree with climate change as per your first post. He disagrees with the catastrophic climate change models which most scientist will tell you are worse case scenarios.

The cost of the regulation though would be trillions of dollars which would be better of staying in the hands of the wealth producers than being taken by governments and carbon traders who would simply spend it on expanding their powers and influence.
An entirely subjective and political statement.

The newly discovered controvery surrounding Yamal tree data conclusively proves a fraud has occured.

The Yamal affair that is being revealed right now, and not even mentioned by mainstream media outlets who have ridden the gravy train, is summed up here in the Financial Times. Keep an eye on this one as it is a developing story:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion...tml?id=2056988
It will be developing when/if it makes it into the scientific literature. An opinion piece not so. But still all this would mean is that this small part of the overall evidence is flawed. Not a fraud as you so excitedly cry. There is quite a significant difference.


This is not correct.
Yes it is. Scientists are on awards that are quite stringent.

Scientists operating larger and larger projects have their salaries increased
Of course they do. If you get a promotion to a more senior position and manage a larger project you get paid more. However if you get a grant you can't bump up your own wage.

and can fritter money away from projects to cover their expenses.
Which doesn't equate to more money in their pockets. And an empty assertion that they "fritter away" money. They have to account for every dollar they spend. Grants specify where and what the money gets spent on. When you apply you have to specify where and what the money is going to be spent on. You can't fritter away money on things outside the scope of the project. Even buying things like computers is outside the scope of most grant money awarded.

The Chamber of Commerce wanted to take the EPA to court over their position that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. They were asked to prove this in a legal case before proceeding with regulation but as usual, such as with Gore and others, a public debate is not welcome.
And a public debate is absolutely the worst place to decide science. To claim otherwise either shows a complete lack of understanding of science or a position born out of political ideology.

[jellomizer]

Green peace must be wetting themselves over this news.

Why would they care. They are not interested in protecting the environment. They just want to find companies to look bad. Green Peace wont be happy until there are no more markets in the world. The World Population has died off to a few million people. And the forests grow over all the cities of the world.

[TMay]

The newly discovered controvery surrounding Yamal tree data conclusively proves a fraud has occured. If only we knew years ago when data was requested but witheld.


You are entitled to your opinions. You are even entitled to follow others opinions. But you are not entitled to misrepresent facts.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Those are the facts that are at the center of your "controversy". There is no fraud.

tom

[brendu]

Thats about as true as saying "gravity as theory hasn't been yet resolved scientifically"

Its just wrong, the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming. Its happening

you sir, are wrong. completely wrong. The scientific community is split, and anyone in the scientific paying any attention to the facts KNOWS that global WARMING is not occuring, and has not been for years now, we are COOLING. hense why the liberal media has changed the name to the climate crisis, because the top scientists supporting the notion of global warming have changed their stance and admitted we are now seeing cooling. go read a scientific journal and stop getting your information from the liberal owned media.

[TMay]

you sir, are wrong. completely wrong. The scientific community is split, and anyone in the scientific paying any attention to the facts KNOWS that global WARMING is not occuring, and has not been for years now, we are COOLING. hense why the liberal media has changed the name to the climate crisis, because the top scientists supporting the notion of global warming have changed their stance and admitted we are now seeing cooling. go read a scientific journal and stop getting your information from the liberal owned media.

Would you like to account for the anecdotal evidence of global warming? You know, like the melting glaciers and shrinking arctic ice.

I'll wait.

[AppleIntelRock]

Would you like to account for the anecdotal evidence of global warming? You know, like the melting glaciers and shrinking arctic ice.

I'll wait.

Nobody really liked Polar Bears anyway. One tried to eat me once.

________________________________________________

I just finished reading this thread and couldn't help but laugh. The supposition and sensationalism implemented by the Right is similar to that regarding the theory of evolution– they'll have you believe there is GREAT scientific debate. I'd invite the skeptics of both issues to come and spend a day with us a TED... and then revise your ideas.

[Zombie Acorn]

Nobody really liked Polar Bears anyway. One tried to eat me once.

________________________________________________

I just finished reading this thread and couldn't help but laugh. The supposition and sensationalism implemented by the Right is similar to that regarding the theory of evolution– they'll have you believe there is GREAT scientific debate. I'd invite the skeptics of both issues to come and spend a day with us a TED... and then revise your ideas.

Bringing in the idea of evolution I could see a parallel, Evolution is widely accepted, but one could argue that humans are destroying evolution because we have taken nature out of the process and now support inferior and superior genetic entities alike.

That would be about the equivalent of what we have for an argument on climate change. The climate does change, how much are humans manipulating it.

[wongulous]

Wow. Mods have really been slacking on this thread... I see pages of posts arguing about the validity of climate change, talking about Apple's Chinese manufacturing, and posts not even addressing the MR article or the Chamber of Commerce. I thought this thread was only for these things, and the more troll-worthy topics were supposed to be for the political forum?

(And I also think it's sad that so many people are in denial about reality. This was only a message, it was only a step in the right direction, it was only a political move for them to leave the CoC and issue this statement. I hope it does motivate some to realize the CoC's toxic behaviors (both environment-wise and morality-wise), and maybe some other businesses to leave or consumers to make more informed choices. For those who are talking about how Apple is not -10% carbon and not 100% manufactured in the U.S. of America, Apple is still making strides ahead of the competition, and you can't expect them to filet their own competitive edge by going all in right now. It's going to take time.)

[AppleIntelRock]

Bringing in the idea of evolution I could see a parallel, Evolution is widely accepted, but one could argue that humans are destroying evolution because we have taken nature out of the process and now support inferior and superior genetic entities alike.

That would be about the equivalent of what we have for an argument on climate change. The climate does change, how much are humans manipulating it.

The proposition that humans aren't the number one source of climate change isn't something I'm opposed to: at this point I really don't think there is general consensus to that end.

[Shivetya]

I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. For a recent article on this subject, please read the current issue of the Skeptical Enquirer. The scientific literature of 20 years ago did not, in fact, support global cooling. Just the opposite.

far easier to determine after the fact what science did and didn't support, the fact is many did support the theories, they just aren't part of the current cult.


regardless, the current fadist are being rebuked almost daily. Climate change is big business and the real facts are, it is only accepted as science because certain people are making money off of it. they had to rename it from global warming when the earth stopped cooperating.

Man makes up such a small % of the CO2 generated that if we stopped it would hard to see. (the amazon pumps out more than we do and it is just one river)

[TMay]

far easier to determine after the fact what science did and didn't support, the fact is many did support the theories, they just aren't part of the current cult.


regardless, the current fadist are being rebuked almost daily. Climate change is big business and the real facts are, it is only accepted as science because certain people are making money off of it. they had to rename it from global warming when the earth stopped cooperating.

Man makes up such a small % of the CO2 generated that if we stopped it would hard to see. (the amazon pumps out more than we do and it is just one river)

It isn't per se about the amount of CO2 that a stable system can support. It is about the additional margin of CO2 that is being released from hydrocarbon sources that have been accumulated over a geological timeframe; coal, peat, natural gas, oil, etc. that is not being absorbed by natural systems like plant life, and excesses that are being absorbed by ocean systems that are increasing the ph and threatening coral reefs and aquatic life.

It is the rise of CO2 in our environment that is the problem, and the fact that it is occurring at an unnaturally rapid pace, faster than many populations will be able to adapt, and that has impact on survival and national security.

[TMay]

The proposition that humans aren't the number one source of climate change isn't something I'm opposed to: at this point I really don't think there is general consensus to that end.

There's a scientific consensus, not a general or political one. Given enough impacts, those will happen as well, but by then mitigation won't work, and you will need to talk of remediation. There will be winners and losers, in all this, but I would bet more losers.

[Macaddicttt]

they had to rename it from global warming when the earth stopped cooperating.

No, they had to rename it when people were too stupid to realize that when the globe's temperature rises and the ice caps melt, adding tons of cold water into the ocean, the parts of the world that border that now colder water will see local temperatures drop.

Just because temperatures are lower in one place doesn't mean the overall temperature of the planet isn't rising. People are too stupid to realize this and started becoming suspicious of global warming when they had a record low one year, despite the fact that there were record highs somewhere else.

Climate change is more accurate anyway since the climate is affected in different ways around the globe.

[Zombie Acorn]

No, they had to rename it when people were too stupid to realize that when the globe's temperature rises and the ice caps melt, adding tons of cold water into the ocean, the parts of the world that border that now colder water will see local temperatures drop.

Just because temperatures are lower in one place doesn't mean the overall temperature of the planet isn't rising. People are too stupid to realize this and started becoming suspicious of global warming when they had a record low one year, despite the fact that there were record highs somewhere else.

Climate change is more accurate anyway since the climate is affected in different ways around the globe.

I believe global temps were down last year, not localities.

[hulugu]

far easier to determine after the fact what science did and didn't support, the fact is many did support the theories, they just aren't part of the current cult.

This isn't true. A review of the scientific literature proved that not only did scientists "not believe" in global cooling, in fact there were studies aimed at collecting data about a possible warming. Almost the entire argument boils down to a single Time magazine cover. Someone in the general media heard "global cooling" and ran with a story, they were wrong.

Secondly, if you make any attempt to study the history of science you'll notice something really interesting: most scientists were wrong before they were right, but you don't eject Euclidian geometry because Euclid also believe in the four humors.

No, they had to rename it when people were too stupid to realize that when the globe's temperature rises and the ice caps melt, adding tons of cold water into the ocean, the parts of the world that border that now colder water will see local temperatures drop.

Just because temperatures are lower in one place doesn't mean the overall temperature of the planet isn't rising. People are too stupid to realize this and started becoming suspicious of global warming when they had a record low one year, despite the fact that there were record highs somewhere else.

Climate change is more accurate anyway since the climate is affected in different ways around the globe.

Right.

I know that Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, but I find it fascinating how people are trying to debunk the science by attacking the name of the thing.

If it were called SuperAwesomeFunFury, this argument would have the exact same meaning as far as the science is concerned. It's a silly, silly argument.

[Zombie Acorn]

This isn't true. A review of the scientific literature proved that not only did scientists "not believe" in global cooling, in fact there were studies aimed at collecting data about a possible warming.



Right.

I know that Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, but I find it fascinating how people are trying to debunk the science by attacking the name of the thing.

If it were called SuperAwesomeFunFury, this argument would have the exact same meaning as far as the science is concerned. It's a silly, silly argument.

The term global warming was coined by those who introduced it, not by those who criticize it.

[Eraserhead]

Thats about as true as saying "gravity as theory hasn't been yet resolved scientifically"

Its just wrong, the scientific community is pretty firm on global warming. Its happening

+1

I believe global temps were down last year, not localities.

1 year != a trend.

Global warming is happening, and its good to see Apple and the other companies taking this stance. Maybe this way the US government will do something about it - and not take the Chinese to force them too.

[Zombie Acorn]

+1



1 year != a trend.

Global warming is happening, and its good to see Apple and the other companies taking this stance. Maybe this way the US government will do something about it - and not take the Chinese to force them too.

No one said it was a trend, I was under the impression that the global temp drop was being pawned off as a local occurrence.

When the IPCC puts out reports with stronger words than "likely" and "really likely" I will be more apt to jump aboard.

[farmboy]

There isn't a real climate problem going on. A real climate issue is something like naturally or industrially contaminated rivers and lakes. A false climate issue is that the planet is 'catastrophically' warming (or cooling) and that man is doing it and can solve it by regulation.

The climate catastrophe only exists in computer models that have been fed erroneous data, incomplete simulations and at times fraudulent data. Dr John R Christy points this out (and he's damn good at what he does)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ml9zs9aZQ

He also points out that if all climate regulation and carbon trading were to come into effect, the difference it would make to global temperatures by the end of the century would be -0.07 degrees centigrade. You read that number correct and experts on all sides of the debate have agreed (obviously some were reluctant). The cost of the regulation though would be trillions of dollars which would be better of staying in the hands of the wealth producers than being taken by governments and carbon traders who would simply spend it on expanding their powers and influence.

The newly discovered controvery surrounding Yamal tree data conclusively proves a fraud has occured. If only we knew years ago when data was requested but witheld.

The Chamber of Commerce wanted to take the EPA to court over their position that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. They were asked to prove this in a legal case before proceeding with regulation but as usual, such as with Gore and others, a public debate is not welcome.

Wow, so much wrong in such a short post. Please learn to read real scientific, peer-reviewed journals, such as Science, Nature, etc. instead of referencing YouTube videos of crackpots.

[Eraserhead]

When the IPCC puts out reports with stronger words than "likely" and "really likely" I will be more apt to jump aboard.

They are using them with their scientific meanings, which are far more certain than their usage in everyday english.

I wouldn't be surprised if most scientists would refer to evolution as a "theory" even though almost all of them believe in it.

[.Andy]

I believe global temps were down last year, not localities.
And as I took the time to explain to you in a previous thread it's well known that large weather events such as La Nino and La Nina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation) account for year over year fluctuations in the global temperature trends.

When the IPCC puts out reports with stronger words than "likely" and "really likely" I will be more apt to jump aboard.
We also went over this in the last thread. I directed you to read the IPCC reports as they quantify these terms. It's obvious that you've still not read them.

This pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf) should help you with terms used by the IPCC authors (although reading th individual reports will result in the same definitions.

http://i36.tinypic.com/hv8coh.png

[Zombie Acorn]

And as I took the time to explain to you in a previous thread it's well known that large weather events such as La Nino and La Nina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation) account for year over year fluctuations in the global temperature trends.


We also went over this in the last thread. I directed you to read the IPCC reports as they quantify these terms. It's obvious that you've still not read them.

This pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf) should help you with terms used by the IPCC authors (although reading th individual reports will result in the same definitions.

http://i36.tinypic.com/hv8coh.png

And like I stated before, as soon as they start using terms other than "likely" and "very likely" I will be more apt to join on board.

[Eraserhead]

And like I stated before, as soon as they start using terms other than "likely" and "very likely" I will be more apt to join on board.

You make a lot of interesting points, but expecting the whole scientific community to change how they use words is unreasonable. This is what they mean by the various words of likelihood from .Andy's linked article. Something being more than 90% likely means its well worth doing what is needed to stop it.

197770

[Zombie Acorn]

You make a lot of interesting points, but expecting the whole scientific community to change how they use words is unreasonable. This is what they mean by the various words of likelihood from .Andy's linked article.

197770

I have to have a 97%+ certainty to agree with scientific findings that I have not studied myself. A 10% and 33.3% gap is quite a large hole to fall in if you are wrong, I play poker quite a bit.

Either way as I stated before in my case its irrelevant, I am 100% pro solar/wind/other natural sources of energy, especially solar.

[madmax_2069]

If you ask me this is both a natural and human event. the Earth and animals alone produce their fair share of greenhouse gasses, and we are just helping it along. all we can do is reduce what we cause of greenhouse gasses, but it is still going to happen naturally, which is still going to cause global warming.

I am not 100% sure if Apple did the right thing or not, because in order to change something shouldn't you be a active member to be able to state their opinion to get things changed. But i also see what Apple did as a good move, why would you want to be apart of something when you do not agree with what they are thinking/doing and they don't care what you think about their take about a given subject.

I do believe that we can change somewhat in what is going on by seeking other alternative fuel and so on and so forth, but its still not going to change whats happening naturally, unless we can find a way to stop that as well, but that could be a bad thing cause we do need some greenhouse gasses.

[Macaddicttt]

I have to have a 97%+ certainty to agree with scientific findings that I have not studied myself.

This is a joke, right? Why'd you pick 97% and not 96% or 98%? This is hilariously arbitrary and so exact all at the same time. You have to see the irony.

[Zombie Acorn]

This is a joke, right? Why'd you pick 97% and not 96% or 98%? This is hilariously arbitrary and so exact all at the same time. You have to see the irony.

96 is too low, 98 is too high.

[.Andy]

And like I stated before, as soon as they start using terms other than "likely" and "very likely" I will be more apt to join on board.
It's pretty much to the point where you're just a contrarian. No matter how many times your demonstrated to be wrong you just keep pounding on with meaningless and arbitrary opinions and assertions.

The IPCC quite clearly has stringent definitions for the words they use. It's been demonstrated to you more than once in multiple threads. Yet you continue on this charade of denying science based on the words that are used. It's an utterly asinine position.

96 is too low, 98 is too high.
edit: You really are just trolling now.

[AppleIntelRock]

96 is too low, 98 is too high.

I believe a happy medium is 96.9%

[Macaddicttt]

edit: You really are just trolling now.

I'm beginning to think that the entire username of Zombie Acorn is a really clever performance piece designed to shed light on the idiocy of certain political positions. So far he's done a great job on Ron Paul and global climate change deniers.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's pretty much to the point where you're just a contrarian. No matter how many times your demonstrated to be wrong you just keep pounding on with meaningless and arbitrary opinions and assertions.

The IPCC quite clearly has stringent definitions for the words they use. It's been demonstrated to you more than once in multiple threads. Yet you continue on this charade of denying science based on the words that are used. It's an utterly asinine position.


edit: You really are just trolling now.

The words have percentage definitions that back them up, those percentages are not good enough for me so whether you want to say "likely" or "a 66% chance" I am not convinced either way. I am quite content with waiting a decade or so for you to prove me wrong.

Also don't call me a troll, I just got off of a time-out for someone misconstruing my words.

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm beginning to think that the entire username of Zombie Acorn is a really clever performance piece designed to shed light on the idiocy of certain political positions. So far he's done a great job on Ron Paul and global climate change deniers.

Im not a denier, I am a fence sitter. Also Ron Paul is awesome, but he wouldn't get anything done, doesn't mean I can't vote for him to represent me.

[Macaddicttt]

The words have percentage definitions that back them up, those percentages are not good enough for me so whether you want to say "likely" or "a 66% chance" I am not convinced either way. I am quite content with waiting a decade or so for you to prove me wrong.

Also don't call me a troll, I just got off of a time-out for someone misconstruing my words.

I don't see how demanding that you need the scientific community to be 97% (not 96% or 98%, but exactly 97%) sure on stuff you haven't personally researched in order to believe them isn't trolling. It's completely laughable, and I have a hard time believing that you can honestly use such a standard.

Do you require economists to back up your/Ron Paul's economic theories to a 97% degree of certainty, too?

[.Andy]

The words have percentage definitions that back them up, those percentages are not good enough for me.
Which is a completely arbitrary position. One minute you're asking for stronger words. The next you're asking for stronger percentages. You are just a contrarian that is constantly shifting the goalposts when demonstrated to be wrong or your position uniformed.

edit: And what macaddicttt said.

[Zombie Acorn]

Which is a completely arbitrary position. One minute you're asking for stronger words. The next you're asking for stronger percentages. You are just a contrarian that is constantly shifting the goalposts when demonstrated to be wrong or your position uniformed.

The words are tied to the percentages, a stronger word and a stronger percentage are exactly the same.

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't see how demanding that you need the scientific community to be 97% (not 96% or 98%, but exactly 97%) sure on stuff you haven't personally researched in order to believe them isn't trolling. It's completely laughable, and I have a hard time believing that you can honestly use such a standard.

Do you require economists to back up your/Ron Paul's economic theories to a 97% degree of certainty, too?

I can experiment with economics myself, I run 2 businesses. I can't let off excess CO2 and follow it to see if it made the globe warmer.

[Macaddicttt]

The words are tied to the percentages, a stronger word and a stronger percentage are exactly the same.

I demand you provide evidence that shows to a 97% assurance that 97% is the reasonable measure for whether or not to believe something.

See? We can both play your silly game. :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

The words are tied to the percentages, a stronger word and a stronger percentage are exactly the same.

I can experiment with economics myself, I run 2 businesses. I can't let off excess CO2 and follow it to see if it made the globe warmer.
You're just trying to get a rise. And it won't work.

[Macaddicttt]

I can experiment with economics myself, I run 2 businesses. I can't let off excess CO2 and follow it to see if it made the globe warmer.

Man, if you think that the economics of two businesses model the global economy, then you know even less about economics than I thought.

[Zombie Acorn]

I demand you provide evidence that shows to a 97% assurance that 97% is the reasonable measure for whether or not to believe something.

See? We can both play your silly game. :rolleyes:

You can set your personal percentage to whatever you want. I didn't say that you had to follow my methods. If you want to believe anything that is 1% certainty of being true it doesn't bother me a bit.

[Macaddicttt]

You can set your personal percentage to whatever you want. I didn't say that you had to follow my methods. If you want to believe anything that is 1% certainty of being true it doesn't bother me a bit.

I just assumed that you would already have all the reasons. I mean, if you require 97%, you must have 97% certainty that 97% is a good number to base your beliefs on. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I just assumed that you would already have all the reasons. I mean, if you require 97%, you must have 97% certainty that 97% is a good number to base your beliefs on. :rolleyes:

If we all required 97% certainty to do anything, nothing would get done.

[Zombie Acorn]

I just assumed that you would already have all the reasons. I mean, if you require 97%, you must have 97% certainty that 97% is a good number to base your beliefs on. :rolleyes:

I have high standards to get off of the fence. Thats not a crime.

[Macaddicttt]

I have high standards to get off of the fence. Thats not a crime.

It's not crime, but it's arbitrary, counterproductive, and idiotic.

[.Andy]

95% confidence intervals are too authoritarian for libertarians.

[TheThirdMan]

How this could be perceived as anything other than an economics decision on apple's part to sell more computers i don't know.

Climate change is neither controversial or political. It's scientific, meaning it is both true and impervious to political conflict.

[bobber205]

I can experiment with economics myself, I run 2 businesses. I can't let off excess CO2 and follow it to see if it made the globe warmer.

The theories on economics can only be simulated on a macro scale, unlike your 2 business. Since you have two of them, I can't imagine they're huge. ;) (But good for you nonetheless).

You can't test most of the economic theories either. You need to accept there theories of some things you can't test for yourself but still need to accept.

[Zombie Acorn]

If we all required 97% certainty to do anything, nothing would get done.

Of course you realize we are talking about scientific theories and not EVERYTHING. I don't see why everyone takes the fact that I want to sit on the fence in regards to human contributions to global warming. Its almost like you guys developed the theories yourselves.

[Zombie Acorn]

The theories on economics can only be simulated on a macro scale, unlike your 2 business. Since you have two of them, I can't imagine they're huge. ;) (But good for you nonetheless).

You can't test most of the economic theories either. You need to accept there theories of some things you can't test for yourself but still need to accept.

On a micro scale I can see how they work, they may not mirror exactly, but if in doubt I know a couple CEOs I can ask with first hand experience on macro scale.

[Zombie Acorn]

95% confidence intervals are too authoritarian for libertarians.

I actually was a leftist authoritarian in my political spectrum quiz.

edit: multi-post messup

[Macaddicttt]

On a micro scale I can see how they work, they may not mirror exactly, but if in doubt I know a couple CEOs I can ask with first hand experience on macro scale.

No CEO has "first hand experience on a macro scale." "Macroeconomics" does not mean "economics concerning big businesses." The CEO of the largest company in the world is still dealing with microeconomics.

[Zombie Acorn]

No CEO has "first hand experience on a macro scale." "Macroeconomics" does not mean "economics concerning big businesses." The CEO of the largest company in the world is still dealing with microeconomics.

Within his own business perhaps. He still uses principles of macroeconomics to make decisions and is able to verify that they work. Something that I would not be able to do because of my small local presence. On a side note they would both have extremely higher experience levels than I would in the area and most likely more expertise than anyone here.

Also we need to clarify what bobber meant by micro and macro.

[Macaddicttt]

Within his own business perhaps. He still uses principles of macroeconomics to make decisions and is able to verify that they work. Something that I would not be able to do because of my small local presence. On a side note they would both have extremely higher experience levels than I would in the area and most likely more expertise than anyone here.

Also we need to clarify what bobber meant by micro and macro.

This CEO you know sets monetary and fiscal policy and directly sees the impact of those policies? Wow, that's some CEO. :rolleyes:

The Fed and Congress modify those directly, and even they can't "verify that they work" within 97% accuracy.

Have you ever taken a macroecon class in your life?

[Zombie Acorn]

This CEO you know sets monetary and fiscal policy and directly sees the impact of those policies? Wow, that's some CEO. :rolleyes:

The Fed and Congress modify those directly, and even they can't "verify that they work" within 97% accuracy.

Have you ever taken a macroecon class in your life?

I got an A in my macro course. Macroeconomics doesn't solely have to do with monetary and fiscal policy via government, it has alot to do with consumer behaviors also. Although a CEO would be able to better verify the impact of government policy than I would be able to.

[bobber205]

On a micro scale I can see how they work, they may not mirror exactly, but if in doubt I know a couple CEOs I can ask with first hand experience on macro scale.

You do not know much about economics. Microeconomics is NOTHING LIKE macroeconomics. Not even close. Both are very hard subjects but they are extremely different. Unless you've made it your primary study or have worked for the FDIC, you can't really claim any firsthand knowledge of it.

Your ignorance and the almost fantastical level of confidence about a subject you seem to know little about is astounding.

[Zombie Acorn]

You do not know much about economics. Microeconomics is NOTHING LIKE macroeconomics. Not even close. Both are very hard subjects but they are extremely different. Unless you've made it your primary study or have worked for the FDIC, you can't really claim any firsthand knowledge of it.

Your ignorance and the almost fantastical level of confidence about a subject you seem to know little about is astounding.


What have I asserted that was fantastical? I have not even proposed any ideas directly related to micro or macro economics. I simply stated that if I would refer to an authority on the subject if I was uncertain, someone with much more knowledge on the subject than is held here for sure.

Also keep in mind you are the one who brought the scale of my business into this. Micro and macro hold definitions outside of economics so you need to specify what you refer to.

[Macaddicttt]

What have I asserted that was fantastical? I have not even proposed any ideas directly related to micro or macro economics. I simply stated that if I would refer to an authority on the subject if I was uncertain, someone with much more knowledge on the subject than is held here for sure.

Also keep in mind you are the one who brought the scale of my business into this. Micro and macro hold definitions outside of economics so you need to specify what you refer to.

You have on these forums presented macroeconomic ideas. I find it astonishing that you could be persuaded to agree with any macroeconomic theory since none of them have ever been proven to a 97% accuracy.

You set the burden of proof arbitrarily high and arbitrarily choose which subjects to apply it to.

[bobber205]

You have on these forums presented macroeconomic ideas. I find it astonishing that you could be persuaded to agree with any macroeconomic theory since none of them have ever been proven to a 97% accuracy.

You set the burden of proof arbitrarily high and arbitrarily choose which subjects to apply it to.

And only on subjects that might affect him negatively as well.

[Zombie Acorn]

You have on these forums presented macroeconomic ideas. I find it astonishing that you could be persuaded to agree with any macroeconomic theory since none of them have ever been proven to a 97% accuracy.

You set the burden of proof arbitrarily high and arbitrarily choose which subjects to apply it to.

I already subscribe to theories of economics. I don't subscribe to massive human contribution to global warming. One has been in the pipeline for hundreds of years, the other, not so much. If you are convinced already then what is the issue? Is this a new religion or something in which you must convert everyone? Why is it such an issue that I remain skeptical?

[bobber205]

I already subscribe to theories of economics. I don't subscribe to massive human contribution to global warming. One has been in the pipeline for hundreds of years, the other, not so much. If you are convinced already then what is the issue? Is this a new religion or something in which you must convert everyone? Why is it such an issue that I remain skeptical?

You have no evidence to remain skeptical. You seem to be more worried for your immediate future than the planet's even though there is *tons* of evidence for global warming, but apparently not enough for you.

Theories of economics are extremely unproven and may never be. Economics try to predict human behavior which is never a 97% sure thing, unless you're talking about sex. ;)

Two reasons we're arguing with you.

1) It's the internet.
2) You believe in very flimsy theories that are very unproven (economics) and not global warming (much more evidence here).

[Zombie Acorn]

You have no evidence to remain skeptical. You seem to be more worried for your immediate future than the planet's even though there is *tons* of evidence for global warming, but apparently not enough for you.

Theories of economics are extremely unproven and may never be. Economics try to predict human behavior which is never a 97% sure thing, unless you're talking about sex. ;)

Two reasons we're arguing with you.

1) It's the internet.
2) You believe in very flimsy theories that are very unproven (economics) and not global warming (much more evidence here).

I have a lack of evidence that leaves me skeptical, anytime the IPCC concluded something was "likely" thats only a 68% chance it happens, if they used very likely it was a 90%.

I will see how closely the models follow into the future, if you are right then we will continue to see a rise in temperature, if not, we won't. Why would I want to devote myself to a theory that leaves 10% and 33.3% gaps? Would I ever be trustworthy again if I was wrong?

[bobber205]

I have a lack of evidence that leaves me skeptical, anytime the IPCC concluded something was "likely" thats only a 68% chance it happens, if they used very likely it was a 90%.

I will see how closely the models follow into the future, if you are right then we will continue to see a rise in temperature, if not, we won't. Why would I want to devote myself to a theory that leaves 10% and 33.3% gaps? Would I ever be trustworthy again if I was wrong?

I personally, if forced to choose, go with any odds greater than 50% or greater.

I still don't understand what worst case scenario you are afraid of. Business might suffer for a bit but will quickly adjust (this is America after all ;) ).

[NT1440]

Man, you guys should see whats going on in the News thread on this, I had no idea so many uneducated (on the scientific process) people were on this site. It's like jumping into a conspiracy theorists dreamland. :eek:

[Zombie Acorn]

I personally, if forced to choose, go with any odds greater than 50% or greater.

I still don't understand what worst case scenario you are afraid of. Business might suffer for a bit but will quickly adjust (this is America after all ;) ).

I am for corporate responsibility to the environment. Ive stated before that I don't dump my trash on my neighbors lawn and I don't expect corporations to either (figuratively speaking).

The only difference is the rational for the change, while you guys are hopped up on climate change fever, I just want a healthy environment so I don't have to breath in toxins and other crap that is polluted into the sky, waters, etc. I also don't enjoy our country being dependent on a limited resource when the sun comes up in the east every day.

[bobber205]

I am for corporate responsibility to the environment. Ive stated before that I don't dump my trash on my neighbors lawn and I don't expect corporations to either (figuratively speaking).

The only difference is the rational for the change, while you guys are hopped up on climate change fever, I just want a healthy environment so I don't have to breath in toxins and other crap that is polluted into the sky, waters, etc. I also don't enjoy our country being dependent on a limited resource when the sun comes up in the east every day.

These are all excellent things and all of them will reduce global warming. If you want the same things done to help the environment but don't want it under the guise of "climate change", I understand that.

Maybe it would be better to try to push people to do those things just because it's good for the environment and our planet?

[MacDSmith2]

How this could be perceived as anything other than an economics decision on apple's part to sell more computers i don't know.

Climate change is neither controversial or political. It's scientific, meaning it is both true and impervious to political conflict.

On the contrary, Climate Change is HIGHLY controversial, VERY political, much of it NON-Scientific and debatable as to both the so-called "truth" OR "falsehood" of it, and is entirely subject to political conflict, as this very thread proves!

[numediaman]

Man, you guys should see whats going on in the News thread on this, I had no idea so many uneducated (on the scientific process) people were on this site. It's like jumping into a conspiracy theorists dreamland. :eek:

It appears that some of the people who post here with their anti-global warming rhetoric are "newbies" - check out their profiles and posts. Either the iPhone has brought in some very strange fish, or they are simply here to make the board look bad.

Either way, I seriously doubt they are truly interested in Macrumors.

As for the intelligence of the average American . . . well, check this out: Only 3% of Oklahoma Students Would Pass Citizenship Test (http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/09/18/only-3-of-oklahoma-students-would-pass-citizenship-test/)

[Zombie Acorn]

It appears that some of the people who post here with their anti-global warming rhetoric are "newbies" - check out their profiles and posts. Either the iPhone has brought in some very strange fish, or they are simply here to make the board look bad.

Either way, I seriously doubt they are truly interested in Macrumors.

As for the intelligence of the average American . . . well, check this out: Only 3% of Oklahoma Students Would Pass Citizenship Test (http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/09/18/only-3-of-oklahoma-students-would-pass-citizenship-test/)

Because the average American lives in Oklahoma. If I were to guess the kids probably blew the test off knowing that it wasn't going to count for a grade.

[Macaddicttt]

Because the average American lives in Oklahoma. If I were to guess the kids probably blew the test off knowing that it wasn't going to count for a grade.

Stop guessing or get out:


II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"

[Zombie Acorn]

Stop guessing or get out:

You cannot prove that they took the test legitimately anymore than I can prove they didn't, I will assert my opinion when I choose.

[Macaddicttt]

You cannot prove that they took the test legitimately anymore than I can prove they didn't, I will assert my opinion when I choose.

So by that logic, no data means anything. Anytime someone provides data, he'll have to prove that it wasn't compromised? I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it was compromised, not the other way around. :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

So by that logic, no data means anything. Anytime someone provides data, he'll have to prove that it wasn't compromised? I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it was compromised, not the other way around. :rolleyes:

By your logic out of average Americans only 3% can pass an immigration test. You base this on a high school 10 question quiz with no oversight. This is hardly a peer reviewed study here.

[Macaddicttt]

By your logic out of average Americans only 3% can pass an immigration test. You base this on a high school 10 question quiz with no oversight. This is hardly a peer reviewed study here.

No, by my logic, only 3% of Oklahoma high schoolers can pass the immigration test because they didn't.

[Zombie Acorn]

No, by my logic, 3% of Oklahoma high schoolers cannot pass the immigration test because they didn't.

Might want to read what the original poster asserted before you agree with it

As for the intelligence of the average American . . .

The source for the article isn't even a valid link.

[NT1440]

No, by my logic, 3% of Oklahoma high schoolers cannot pass the immigration test because they didn't.

The link actually said that 3% can PASS the immigration test. I've known several people who took it and they said it was by far the hardest exam they've ever taken. I really don't think most of the citizens in the country would be granted access if they had to take it.

[Macaddicttt]

Might want to read what the original poster asserted before you agree with it

I didn't agree with the OP. I called you out on your continual "guessing" on this forum, which is clearly against the rules.

The link actually said that 3% can PASS the immigration test. I've known several people who took it and they said it was by far the hardest exam they've ever taken. I really don't think most of the citizens in the country would be granted access if they had to take it.

Typo... Fixed. Thanks!

[Zombie Acorn]

I didn't agree with the OP. I called you out on your continual "guessing" on this forum, which is clearly against the rules.


I guess we will never know because the source that the article links to is not valid. It could be pulled out of thin air.

[TMay]

The link actually said that 3% can PASS the immigration test. I've known several people who took it and they said it was by far the hardest exam they've ever taken. I really don't think most of the citizens in the country would be granted access if they had to take it.

Seriously. The first president was a freebee. You only need to get five more right out of the remaining nine questions. I'm trying to track down the actual test, but "by far the hardest exam they've ever taken"? Uh, no.

[hulugu]

Seriously. The first president was a freebee. You only need to get five more right out of the remaining nine questions. I'm trying to track down the actual test, but "by far the hardest exam they've ever taken"? Uh, no.

Well, a sample of the questions is available here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm) and here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm).

The only one I didn't know off-hand was which INS form is used to naturalization.

The rest seemed pretty easy: How many colors in the flag? How many branches of government? Name the 13 colonies. Not exactly trick questions.

Now, if they asked what started the Whiskey Rebellion or name the Apache leader who surrendered to US Calvary in 1886, then I would understand the difficulty.

[TMay]

The link actually said that 3% can PASS the immigration test. I've known several people who took it and they said it was by far the hardest exam they've ever taken. I really don't think most of the citizens in the country would be granted access if they had to take it.

http://www.news9.com/global/Story.asp?s=11145212

Obviously, they were talking about a test in Gas Dynamics.

[Macaddicttt]

I guess we will never know because the source that the article links to is not valid. It could be pulled out of thin air.

Google is your friend:

Link (http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1020:oklahoma-public-school-students-fail-basic-citizenship-test&catid=60:state&Itemid=108)

Link 2 (http://www.ocpathink.org/publications/perspective-archives/september-2009-volume-16-number-9/?module=perspective&id=2321)

[TMay]

Well, a sample of the questions is available here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm) and here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm).

The only one I didn't know off-hand was which INS form is used to naturalization.

The rest seemed pretty easy: How many colors in the flag? How many branches of government? Name the 13 colonies. Not exactly trick questions.

Now, if they asked what started the Whiskey Rebellion or name the Apache leader who surrendered to US Calvary in 1886, then I would understand the difficulty.

Those examples are actually harder than the given test, but not by much.

http://www.news9.com/global/Story.asp?s=11145212

[Zombie Acorn]

Well, a sample of the questions is available here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm) and here (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm).

The only one I didn't know off-hand was which INS form is used to naturalization.

The rest seemed pretty easy: How many colors in the flag? How many branches of government? Name the 13 colonies. Not exactly trick questions.

Now, if they asked what started the Whiskey Rebellion or name the Apache leader who surrendered to US Calvary in 1886, then I would understand the difficulty.

Agreed, a junior high kid could answer a majority of those questions with ease. I think this further shows that the article/report was bunk, and if it wasn't and only 3% could pass in OK I hope its not contagious.

[Macaddicttt]

Agreed, a junior high kid could answer a majority of those questions with ease.

Source or GTFO.

[Zombie Acorn]

Google is your friend:

Link (http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1020:oklahoma-public-school-students-fail-basic-citizenship-test&catid=60:state&Itemid=108)

Link 2 (http://www.ocpathink.org/publications/perspective-archives/september-2009-volume-16-number-9/?module=perspective&id=2321)

I shouldn't have to google to verify the source of an article.

It is interesting that we now find that it was a telephone survey and not administered during school hours. Its hard enough to engage kids in QA during school time, the questions aren't hard.

[Zombie Acorn]

Source or GTFO.

I will have to find a source of junior high kids, it may take me a while. I am pretty sure they know what the colors of the flag are though.

[TMay]

Agreed, a junior high kid could answer a majority of those questions with ease. I think this further shows that the article/report was bunk, and if it wasn't and only 3% could pass in OK I hope its not contagious.

It's always good policy when following up comments to do a modicum of research. I recommend that you try that before commenting further.

[Eraserhead]

I personally, if forced to choose, go with any odds greater than 50% or greater.

I still don't understand what worst case scenario you are afraid of. Business might suffer for a bit but will quickly adjust (this is America after all ;) ).

We're probably talking about spending at most say 5% of GDP on global warming. Regardless as efficiency is still a "good thing" as you spend less money buying resources it unlikely that the impact will be particularly significant.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's always good policy when following up comments to do a modicum of research. I recommend that you try that before commenting further.

I have a cousin I will see tomorrow who is in junior high. I guess we will find out. :)

[TMay]

I have a cousin I will see tomorrow who is in junior high. I guess we will find out. :)

Cool, I'm interested in his response.

[bobber205]

There are alot of stupid Americans. You don't really need links or evidence to know this, just a pulse. ;)

I have heard the immigration test is extremely hard though.

[hulugu]

There are alot of stupid Americans. You don't really need links or evidence to know this, just a pulse. ;)

I have heard the immigration test is extremely hard though.

I've heard the same thing, but looking at these questions I'm actually appalled that the rate would be as low as 3%. I think I could have answered a majority of these questions after 7th grade history.

[bobber205]

I've heard the same thing, but looking at these questions I'm actually appalled that the rate would be as low as 3%. I think I could have answered a majority of these questions after 7th grade history.

We are talking about Oklahoma. ;) Not exactly the intellectual capital of the world. :P

[Zombie Acorn]

We are talking about Oklahoma. ;) Not exactly the intellectual capital of the world. :P

They actually scored 11th in 2006 in overall SAT scorings. California scored 35th, New York scored 43rd, Mass scored 29th, and Connecticut scored 31st.

I haven't been able to find a compilation of later years by state.

http://www.georgiaeducation.org/documents/2006%20SAT%20Rankings%20by%20State.pdf

Kansas scored 8th. :)

I think we use the ACT more often around here though.

[TMay]

They actually scored 11th in 2006 in overall SAT scorings. California scored 35th, New York scored 43rd, Mass scored 29th, and Connecticut scored 31st.

I haven't been able to find a compilation of later years by state.

http://www.georgiaeducation.org/documents/2006%20SAT%20Rankings%20by%20State.pdf

Kansas scored 8th. :)

I think we use the ACT more often around here though.

These numbers don't mean all that much as participation rate for SAT was very low for those states. Probably only the highest percentile kids taking the tests in OK (7%) and KS (8%), skewing it. High rates of testing would give more accurate results, so based on the data in the chart, comparison of ACT test results might be more appropriate.

Thanks for the chart. food for thought.

[bobber205]

These numbers don't mean all that much as participation rate for SAT was very low for those states. Probably only the highest percentile kids taking the tests in OK (7%) and KS (8%), skewing it. High rates of testing would give more accurate results, so based on the data in the chart, comparison of ACT test results might be more appropriate.

Thanks for the chart. food for thought.

I used to live in Kansas. Definitely not high participation rates in my high school class.

[Zombie Acorn]

These numbers don't mean all that much as participation rate for SAT was very low for those states. Probably only the highest percentile kids taking the tests in OK (7%) and KS (8%), skewing it. High rates of testing would give more accurate results, so based on the data in the chart, comparison of ACT test results might be more appropriate.

Thanks for the chart. food for thought.

It goes both ways, around here ACT is pushed, not so much in other places so its hard to look at it from either way as we don't have a standard test.

[brendu]

You are entitled to your opinions. You are even entitled to follow others opinions. But you are not entitled to misrepresent facts.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Those are the facts that are at the center of your "controversy". There is no fraud.

tom

The fraud was that they hand picked the trees that allowed for their argument to work... then tried to hide their information from the scientific community. While they did not lie, they were not really telling the truth or should I say stating accurate unbiased facts.

[.Andy]

The fraud was that they hand picked the trees that allowed for their argument to work... then tried to hide their information from the scientific community.
Has this been proven to be the case? The realclimate link seems to say it isn't.

[TMay]

The fraud was that they hand picked the trees that allowed for their argument to work... then tried to hide their information from the scientific community. While they did not lie, they were not really telling the truth or should I say stating accurate unbiased facts.

Fail for reading comprehension.

The methodology is discussed in detail, and it is not as you describe. More to the point, look at all of the graphs following that show the "hockey stick" increase in CO2 from many varied sources of data, not just tree rings.

[TMay]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/7/790678/-Oceans-Turn-AcidicHypoxic-in-Fertile-Zones-from-Arctic-to-Antarctica:-DK-Greenroots

Conservatives and wingnuts beware: dailykos is THE premier liberal/progressive website.