That's KI Tablets... Better known as Potassium Iodide Tablets. Guess your 3 masters and 1 phd doesn't make you an expert of all things...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Paris Accord 'Was Wrong for Our Planet'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do not believe it is trickling down at all - you have it backwards - it has welled up from an understandably angry citizenry - our dysfunctional government is in need of true reform.
The Planet has gotten warmer year for year BEFORE the industrialization.
I know... The polar caps are melting.... But who is to tell they would not have if the industrialization would have never happened? The Media. Spawned by a certain Mrs. Thatcher of England who wanted to get Nuclear Power on the agenda and did it with a Swedish Man's incomplete Research...
I am no climate researcher - but there are thousands of them who swear to their daughter's lives that global warming is a hoax. Tim Cook also is NOT a climate researcher and takes his information from the media.....
But what sets Tim Cook apart from us is that he and his company carries the necessary cash to figure out whether global warming is real... Only - they don't ! They speak the tongue of the media..
Tim - Put your money where your mouth is !
I know... The polar caps are melting.... But who is to tell they would not have if the industrialization would have never happened? The Media. Spawned by a certain Mrs. Thatcher of England who wanted to get Nuclear Power on the agenda and did it with a Swedish Man's incomplete Research...
I am no climate researcher - but there are thousands of them who swear to their daughter's lives that global warming is a hoax. Tim Cook also is NOT a climate researcher and takes his information from the media.....
But what sets Tim Cook apart from us is that he and his company carries the necessary cash to figure out whether global warming is real... Only - they don't ! They speak the tongue of the media..
Tim - Put your money where your mouth is !
Here's a site dedicated to 31,000 scientists who don't feel the data supports man made global warming. They formed after Kyoto.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
Are there seriously people here still denying global warming? It's 2017 people. Get with the times.
That's silly. I don't have to. Gas is everywhere. And I don't have to hang out at a gas station any more than 5 minutes to go another 300 miles.
[doublepost=1496571502][/doublepost]
Aggressive driving.
It's not only the lack of charging station, but more the required loiter time. Until I can get 100% charge in tank fill time, I'm not willing to consider it. And if I drove a Tesla the way I drive, my charging stops would double (based on very quick calculation). I would keep that thing in ludicrous mode.
Are there seriously people still buying this made up crap? It's 2017... don't be a sucker. It's a money and power grab. Always was. Always will be. That's why our president got us OUT of the deal. Get with it.
It's not even about "the deal". Even if you think it's bad, don't sit here and spout this anti-science nonsense.
The Japanese attacked us first dragging us into war and ignored us when we warned them. Twice. They brought that on themselves. If you think North Korea having nukes is the same as the US or U.K. Or China having nukes then I have nothing more to discuss with you. You clearly hate America and are unwilling to think rationally about a rogue nation who murder people for speaking.
I am a climate researcher, and yes: you are right. The Earth is currently warming up and would also do this without human intervention. However, we are contributing to this process by burning fossil fuels on a massive scale. CO2, buried in the ground for millions of years is now being burned and wraps around our planet like a blanket. So, we are speeding up the rising trend in global temperatures. Normally, global temperatures evolve slowly over thousands of years, but now they do in the lifetime of a human.
You don't need to be climate researcher to realise this will put additional pressure on ecosystems that are already under a lot of stress. And changing weather patterns will have an effect on crops, rising sea levels will impact coastal areas, etc... Earth can become quite inhospitable. So again... why take the risk? Earth's a pretty good place to live in space. Why mess it up by playing with the climate control buttons?
And it's not like the solution are so draconian. They simply state we should be more energy efficient, pollute less and switch to more environmental energy sources. Again, why would anybody be against that? Now that we finally have 190 countries agreeing on these principles, the US wants to pull out.
Sad.
[doublepost=1496588396][/doublepost]
31,000 scientists represent only a very tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates. And they are not all climate researchers! According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.
There are also many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for this petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.
So again, it's simply a propaganda website. You can also easily find a website claiming the Earth is flat. It also has a lot of followers. Why not quote them as well?
Look at that website: it doesn't have any credibility. And 0.3% of scientists is hardly a compelling number. Basic math shows you that 99,7% of scientists did not sign that petition. So it's hardly convincing.
And don't forget have have the technology to build much safer reactors than today. A uranium-fueled reactor--the ones we're most familiar with--is essentially a "dirty bomb" waiting to go off, as we've seen from the Windscale reactor accident in 1957, several nuclear reactor failures aboard Soviet submarines, the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and the Fukushima Dai-Ichi accident in 2011.
The best solution is to expand on the research Alvin Weinberg did with molten-salt reactors in the 1960's using thorium-232 dissolved in molten fluoride salts as fuel and turn that into a commercial nuclear reactor design. That reactor design, also known by the name Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), is extremely safe to run (there's no such thing as a meltdown since the fuel is already in liquid form and a SCRAM reactor shutdown is quickly dumping the liquid nuclear fuel into another holding tank), generates only a very small amount of nuclear waste (and the waste has a radioactive half-life of under 350 years, which means really cheap nuclear waste disposal if the nuclear medicine people doesn't grab it first!), and coupled with a closed-loop Brayton turbine to generate power, doesn't require expensive cooling towers or locating the reactor near a large body of water. Interestingly, both China and India are building research LFTR's to prove it can be scaled up to commercial operation. If it works, then India, which has some of the world's largest thorium deposits, and China, which has large thorium deposits near the Bayan Obo Mining District with its huge rare-Earth mining operation, could supply its energy needs for hundreds of years!
I find it interesting you are a climate researcher who would say "CO2 ... is now being burned". That's not quite accurate even though I know what you meant.
Other than that you seem to be spot on in your response to the previous poster. It doesn't matter whether human co2 emissions are the main cause of current climate changes, we know co2 is bad for the environment in the quantities we are producing. That should be enough to move away from it. I'm interested, what are your views on nuclear power as a climate researcher? Also what do you research specifically? The climate scientists I have spoken to the most are hydroclimatologists who study drought, precipitation, and glacial melting. They refuse to say there is any evidence of catastrophic climate change occurring but they also all support ditching fossil fuels anyway.
I haven't, but my brother has many times in the last ten years. He told me in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, you NEVER get clear air days where you can clearly see the blue sky, and people regularly wear very thick face masks in order to protect their breathing as best they could. Indeed, during 75th Anniversary parade in Beijing of the founding of the People's Republic of China, they had to shut down all the coal-fired power plants in and near Beijing for a week just to get that clear air for the day of the parade.
That's why I felt the Paris climate accord should have included a provision that China must phase out most coal-fired power plants (or impose EPA-style emission controls on them) over the next ten years. The emissions from coal-fired power plants is so bad that it's affecting the air quality of the Korean Peninsula and Japan's home islands (especially during the spring when the Asian Dust dust storms carry all that pollution downwind, and you can easily see the pollution in Pyongyang, Seoul, most Japanese cities, and the pollution can travel as far as the US West Coast).
I never said it's OK for me that NK has nukes, quite the opposite. But, since I don't live in the US, I'm also aware of how dangerous the US has became for the rest of the world as well, and how many crimes they have already committed. There is a term called "war crimes", so dropping a nuclear bomb and condemning not only your direct enemies but the next generations as well along with civilians, is not covered by "they brought that on themselves". It's just too arrogant. Did you just try to justify the nuclear bombing in Japan that is condemned by the entire planet ?
But the point is that I just asked what are the criteria for a country - any country for that matter - to be allowed to own nuclear weapons. How a country that took part, or directly created the most wars after the WW2 is OK to have nukes. And not only that, but to also be in position to judge who can have nukes and who cannot. What about Germany or Italy ? What about Japan ? Would you be OK with them having nukes ? Who creates the list with the countries that they are "good enough" to have them ?
Well the answer to your question is The United Nations Security Council.
[doublepost=1496598359][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1496598359][/doublepost]
Fair enough. However, in a civilized world, I'd expect that an approval of the same council would be required before taking any actions against any country violating these rules.
What you say actually sometimes make we worry about the kids in my proximity (and all other kids for that matter). I still hope they will have a life worth living. The fix? I think the world needs more empathy…
Edit:
A friend read your post and said:
Massive overpopulation exists only because of coal, oil and gas. Skygods are often worshipped by the most overpopulated areas. It is connected. The largest ”dollar monsters” are due to coal, oil and gas, and a system that does not tamper with capitalism, which is basically good, if used properly and bitch slapped.
An economy based on renewable energy, where everything in nature has an actual value measurable in money. Where it costs to destroy it and where it pays off to live with nature. What Trump does not realize is that this is the economy of the future, the ones who switch fastest will grow the most. But everyone is in the same boat so it helps with common goals…
Sounds like something?
Not that I'm for ”bitch slapping” in general, but you get the idea…
I also worry for the kids. Big time. But I think your friend is naive. Overpopulation exists for two reasons: sky wizards whose believers know that it's easier to be fruitfull and multiply than to convert, and 2) modern medicine, namely antibiotics. I firmly believe that the next generation or two will have to endure a ridiculously filthy, overcrowded and resource constrained planet until technology advances far enough to offset our inability to stop multiplying like cancer cells. The Piscean Age is ending and the old ways and beliefs will not go down without a fight. We have another 50+ years before we're fully in Aquarius and the ride is going to be rough. Long term I have faith. Short term, not so much.
Wonderful post. I have a friend who has turned into flat Earther. Boggles the mind! One can truly find validation and community on the internet for the most absurd beliefs these days. The echo chamber phenomenon is truly frightening. I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing a study where researchers took people with left and right leaning views and gave them a math problem to solve. The problem required participants to read something and then, based on what they read, answer a math related question. The first problem had nothing to do with anything political and almost everyone, regardless of political viewpoint, got it right. The next problem involved gun control and a large percentage on both sides got it totally wrong, with answers skewing towards their political beliefs. Scary stuff.
I very much agree with your take on climate. Even if, for the sake of argument, burning fossil fuels had no effect on climate, they still polute, destroy the environment, cause disease when not managed properly, etc. Why continue down this path when switching to clean energy sources will create far more jobs than putting a handful of coal miners back to work, while also leading to a cleaner, healthier environment? It boggles my mind watching people defend and rationalize the status quo rather than embracing positive change that would put more people to work, in less risky conditions, and create economic strength for the next generation.
Neither. These deniers are either greedy, or they are skeptical because (as others have said) it seems politically motivated. TBH, I don't know what to think myself unless I can see some research from both sides (which might be there but I haven't looked at it), but I see plenty of unrelated reasons to reduce emissions anyway.
[doublepost=1496611582][/doublepost]
No, only when it makes them look good. Apple produces their stuff in Chinese factories that pollute in ways U.S. regulations wouldn't allow.
But maybe you don't need the Paris accord anyway, and we should have something else instead. I ended up reading it over, and it's meaningless other than for symbolism. Kinda pissed me off how much hot air they put into it; it would be easier to argue for staying in if it had some simple deals we could justify.
Last edited: