Apple Announces Major Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[danny842003]

Nobody cares. Give us product updates.

I care.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

You also chose to not address the solar activity argument at all, doubling down on anthropic changes as the exclusive factor, even while admitting that it's a "complex" system (see next quote/below).

Please show me where I have mentioned that CO2 changes were "the exclusive factor" in climate change. I've been discussing atmospheric carbon because that is the topic of the thread. Once again, moving goal posts to set up a straw man argument. Let's stay on topic.

For the record, and since you brought it up, I know the theories behind the earth tilting on its axis & changing its orbit as being one of the causes of the ice ages. You present this like it's some revelation or a "gotcha" argument. Of course I didn't bring it up - because the topic here is CO2 emissions. Check the first post.

even in an understanding where you admit that climate is "complex" and not understandable

Did I say climate is not understandable? Please show me where I said such a thing. I'd love to see that.

People on the "climate change exists" side of the argument do this ALL THE TIME to anyone who questions any aspect of the popularized narrative. Thanks for validating that we should continue to write off anything they're saying. Additionally, you at no point had any respect for my (or anyone else's) contrarian arguments, so don't try the high-road.

Funny, in addition to once again putting words in my mouth it seems you edited my quote that this ^ refers to. You removed what you said about me. Allow me to present what I wrote without your edit (deletion added and highlighted):

First, it might help if you don't presume to know about me, what I know, my education, what I may "realize," what I may "have a fear of," etc. It totally blows your arguments if you think you know these things about me and then base your characterizations on ad hominem statements like this. If you think it supports your arguments to assume that I (or anyone else) have a different opinion than you simply because we're uneducated, "propagandized," "clearly have no idea" or "easily influenced" then that may be an easy way to write off the opinions of others. But it's a pretty weak way of presenting an argument.

Ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with as a way to say that you don't like ad hominem attacks is an odd way to try to make a point, don't you think?

If scientists can't exhaustively define it, then scientists have zero authority to create fear or influence policy based upon it.

Scientists have precisely and with data described the rise of atmospheric CO2. Scientists and non-scientists alike have documented the consequences of climate change that is ongoing. A lot of the rest of what you have mentioned - "fear," "money," "mechanism of control," "profits," etc. - may be what you believe, and that's fine, but when they're presented without evidence they are easily ignored. Because they are the kinds of words that people use to get an emotional reaction, not to accurately communicate about actionable facts.

When I see those kinds of words in discussions like this, I can see they are a distraction from facts, and I have to wonder why.

 

[Bodhitree]

Good to hear that at least one company cares about the environment.

 

[glambutnerdy]

Ah yes, removing the stickers and making people pay separately for chargers have certainly done the job. It’s certainly not the forced obsolescence, non upgradable and unrepairable components in lieu of AppleCare+ profits.

The fact that I could go out, and buy a 128gb RAM 8TB MacBook Pro Max and still have it end up in the landfill in about 10~ years time thanks to a vital, finite-life SSD component being soldered and still not have it be able to outlive my 10 year old intel MBP is insanity.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

Please show me where I have mentioned that CO2 changes were "the exclusive factor" in climate change. I've been discussing atmospheric carbon because that is the topic of the thread. Once again, moving goal posts to set up a straw man argument. Let's stay on topic.

For the record, and since you brought it up, I know the theories behind the earth tilting on its axis & changing its orbit as being one of the causes of the ice ages. You present this like it's some revelation or a "gotcha" argument. Of course I didn't bring it up - because the topic here is CO2 emissions. Check the first post.



Did I say climate is not understandable? Please show me where I said such a thing. I'd love to see that.



Funny, in addition to once again putting words in my mouth it seems you edited my quote that this ^ refers to. You removed what you said about me. Allow me to present what I wrote without your edit (deletion added and highlighted):



Ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with as a way to say that you don't like ad hominem attacks is an odd way to try to make a point, don't you think?



Scientists have precisely and with data described the rise of atmospheric CO2. Scientists and non-scientists alike have documented the consequences of climate change that is ongoing. A lot of the rest of what you have mentioned - "fear," "money," "mechanism of control," "profits," etc. - may be what you believe, and that's fine, but when they're presented without evidence they are easily ignored. Because they are the kinds of words that people use to get an emotional reaction, not to accurately communicate about actionable facts.

When I see those kinds of words in discussions like this, I can see they are a distraction from facts, and I have to wonder why.

I can only hope for the best for you, mate. None of what you said is even worth my time to address - worried about a quote I clipped for brevity, and framed it as if I had edited any of my previous posts in this thread? LOL, no LMAO, no LMFAO.

Guess you'll have to keep wondering, cause it doesn't seem like you're able to figure this out (maybe try getting a filter to remove the fluoride from your water), and I really don't care to banter with you further.

 

[WinstonSmyth]

You are either misinformed or you just don’t understand data. Per the NOAA, the level of CO2 never exceeded 300ppm for the last 800,000 years until the Industrial Revolution. Today the rate is 420ppm.

Farmboy you are simply wrong. There were periods where it has been way higher, and life thrived. Much lower and life will cease to exist.