Apple Opposes Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan in United States

[sunapple]

Or a volcano eruption that's equal to 50 years of human CO2 production.

All volcanic activity on earth combined per year is just a fraction of what humans are producing (whatever source was easiest to find).

We can focus on the real and measurable problems around us. That would do more to make the world's environment livable than chanting a meaningless phrase like "Climate Change" over and over again like a medieval monk.

Agreed, let's focus on climate change which is a real and measurable problem that affects everyone around the world. Denying climate change over and over again like medieval monks is even more problematic than reopening coal mines.

 

[Huntn]

Totally irrelevant what Apple thinks about this. This rule is applicable to power plants, not ivory tower companies like Apple. I very much doubt Apple really spends time understanding this rule or its impacts. And if they do, those resources should be spent thinking about Apple products or perhaps environmental rules that actually are relevant to them. This is very obviously an opportunistic statement by Timmy and company.

Total bunk and nonsensical language: "Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty," the California-based company said in a filing to the agency.Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power."

I don’t understand your hostility directed at Apple. Companies make investments based on regulations, and when a bull like Trump is turned loose in the china shop, based on financial commitments, it very well could adversely effect their bottom line.
[doublepost=1523280024][/doublepost]

Malls are likely to buy the cheapest power they can. It is unlikely “green” energy would be always the least expensive. I know that in the state where I live, the vast majority of power is derived from natural gas and nuclear sources. I know this because my cousin writes energy policy for the state. The point was that Apple probably only includes energy sourcing data for property that Apple owns... this isn’t an outrageous idea.

Least expensive, an interesting phrase. Wind and solar wins without any subsidies.

1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty Energy
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/2...-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/

 

[amegicfox]

Tim (who flies private) wants the government to foot every Apple "clean" energy investments

Tim cares about being green as long as the USA taxpayers will pay for it (same with Tesla, Al Gore etc.)

Drastic climate change has been happening for millions of years and it's not man made and USA pollution is so minimal is basically non-existent

China, Middle East, India, Pakistan and Africa are the most polluted continents/countries is the world

Tim stated that without US "regulations" aka US "taxpayers paid" he does not care about green investments

 

[shk718]

The EPA you remember, which I assume was the one that existed under the prior administration, outlived its usefulness a long time ago. If anything, Pruitt is returning it to its rightful place. EPA has easily been the worst regulation creating office in the US government for some time. It was not that way when it was first created in the early 70's, when real environmental concerns existed and were solved fairly quickly. The EPA's been using junk science for decades to prop up false environmental stories (the ozone hole, AGW) to try and remain relevant.
[doublepost=1523058134][/doublepost]

Wrong. It's completely on point in regards to healthcare (but not really this article, but I digress). Your premise is false: car insurance is an invalid comparison to health insurance because driving is a privilege and not a right. No one is forced to buy car insurance; you buy it to legally operate a vehicle on the road. I shouldn't be forced to buy a good from anyone just for being a living citizen.

Using your "argument":
Should we also not be required to pay into social security? I'd personally prefer to invest my own retirement money - I can do a lot better than the returns SS gets.
Should emergency room's turn away anyone w/o insurance? I prefer to live in a humane society.
How about taxes? Should you then not be required to pay taxes if you disagree with what they're being spent on?
[doublepost=1523282450][/doublepost]

Utterly false. And we give several more billions to subsidize green energy. That's straight from the EIA. Scroll down to Myth #2 and read through the end of the article:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/08/the-economist-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-climate-disaster/

And since we're talking taxes, note that oil companies pay well more than the average S&P 500 company.
[doublepost=1523055331][/doublepost]

What kind of garbage are you believing? Because the US has some of the best environmental qualities, in terms of cleanliness, in the world. "Our environment is polluted"????? What kind of blind statement is that? And guess what, the CPP, which is what this article is about, has never taken effect. It's rules have never been put in place, thank goodness. It is grossly full of government overreach and red tape. Go get educated. And follow the money, not the green hype.
[doublepost=1523055728][/doublepost]

Please read the post right before yours. You have no clue what you're talking about. Follow the money, not the green hype.
[doublepost=1523056779][/doublepost]

Please explain: how was the invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan (not sure which one you're referring too), illegal?
[doublepost=1523056948][/doublepost]

Well - you're quite the expert on environmental issues. you can't both say environmental laws are unnecessary and that our environment is not polluted - There has been improvements - it's because of emission laws (which is what the CCP is about). And please don't tell me how clean America is - NYC is filthy, there is soot everywhere. LA has a tremendous smog problem. there is a pile of garbage floating off the coast of California the size of Texas. Let's not forget what happened to the people of Flint Michigan. What the unbelievably corrupt Scott Pruitt is don't to the EPA is not good and the consequences will reveal themselves in short order.
Spoken like a truly uneducated greenie that's following the herd. This is about money, not the environment.
[doublepost=1523057167][/doublepost]

Then let a free, undistorted market decide. If green energy is so competitive, then let it go unsubsidized.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Agreed, let's focus on climate change which is a real and measurable problem that affects everyone around the world. Denying climate change over and over again like medieval monks is even more problematic than reopening coal mines.

I don't deny that the climate is changing. We have millions of years of archeological data that shows that the earth is never steady-state. Even if humanity were wiped off the earth tomorrow, the earth's climate would continue to cycle through very warm and very cold periods. And from very wet to very dry. The American West, for instance, is currently in an uncharacteristically wet period that we should not expect to last more than another 50-100 years. After which time it will be a desert, no matter what we do to help or hinder it.

What I deny is that "climate change", as a buzzword, does anything to help society see and address specific man-made pollution problems that need to be cleaned up. All it does is pass the buck to politicians, who are happy to use it as political cover. And to the banksters, who want to monetize our collective guilt to their own ends, without actually solving the problem. Because it's a feel-good marketing slogan, and not a solution.

Feeling good, without actually working on solutions, won't solve our problems. Nor will handing unchecked power to the state in order to "save us from climate change". Since nobody pollutes worse, and with less accountability than governments do.

Go have a look at how many Superfund sites are the result of US Military activities. Look up "Santa Susana Field Laboratory", and see how they had 5 unreported nuclear reactor accidents there, right next to Los Angeles, all of which dwarfed Three Mile Island. Have a look at Hanford, and note how they deliberately released radioactive gases just to see what would happen. Then take a look at the Russian port of Archangel, and how that city is all but uninhabitable now. Or Andreyeva Bay. This is what happens when those in power cannot be held accountable for their actions.

As a society, we must open our eyes and focus on the individual problems that surround us, and their solutions. Not pie-in-the-sky marketing slogans.

 

[sunapple]

I don't deny that the climate is changing. We have millions of years of archeological data that shows that the earth is never steady-state. Even if humanity were wiped off the earth tomorrow, the earth's climate would continue to cycle through very warm and very cold periods. And from very wet to very dry. The American West, for instance, is currently in an uncharacteristically wet period that we should not expect to last more than another 50-100 years. After which time it will be a desert, no matter what we do to help or hinder it.

The CO2 levels in the atmosfeer are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years and they've been climbing since the Industrial Revolution, thus proving that we as humanity are causing a change to the climate that's bigger than the normal climate change that you're talking of. This is very important to understand.

What I deny is that "climate change", as a buzzword, does anything to help society see and address specific man-made pollution problems that need to be cleaned up. All it does is pass the buck to politicians, who are happy to use it as political cover. And to the banksters, who want to monetize our collective guilt to their own ends, without actually solving the problem. Because it's a feel-good marketing slogan, and not a solution.

Feeling good, without actually working on solutions, won't solve our problems. Nor will handing unchecked power to the state in order to "save us from climate change". Since nobody pollutes worse, and with less accountability than governments do.

Go have a look at how many Superfund sites are the result of US Military activities. Look up "Santa Susana Field Laboratory", and see how they had 5 unreported nuclear reactor accidents there, right next to Los Angeles, all of which dwarfed Three Mile Island. Have a look at Hanford, and note how they deliberately released radioactive gases just to see what would happen. Then take a look at the Russian port of Archangel, and how that city is all but uninhabitable now. Or Andreyeva Bay. This is what happens when those in power cannot be held accountable for their actions.

As a society, we must open our eyes and focus on the individual problems that surround us, and their solutions. Not pie-in-the-sky marketing slogans.

You're denying that man-made climate change is a real problem and you're just pointing fingers at corporations and governments. Who put a man in the Oval Office who pulled out of the Paris Agreement and reverses course on important environmental regulations? People who need to educate themselves better.

Society needs to be aware of the mess that we're making so it can take some proper action.

 

[PracticalMac]

But Apple specially mentions it’s specific investments, not some presumed effect on the broad economy. It’s objection is based on its already spent dollars on clean factories put it at an economic disadvantage.

But to your point it works both ways. If regulations make producing power more expensive then that also becomes a big hit on the economy b/c consumers have less disposable income on less essential items. It’s not a zero-sum game.

And yet renewable are a bigger job maker than coal and natural gas combined.

Customers will pay a little more on power bill, but employ tens of thousands more and reduce long term pollution.
Net positive.
[doublepost=1523291601][/doublepost]

There's a huge flaw in your example: the word "believe". Science is not "belief", it is proof. Think about it. If you need this distinction to be more clear, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's address to Caltech from 2003 (that would the Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame, among other movies and novels):

Scientist believes based on proof.
But a lot of the public are not so eager to jump on the proof.
Believe is a more welcoming word than a hard one like proof, so I used that.

But you are right, condensing the meaning reveals the word proof

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

The CO2 levels in the atmosfeer are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years and they've been climbing since the Industrial Revolution, thus proving that we as humanity are causing a change to the climate that's bigger than the normal climate change that you're talking of. This is very important to understand.

Here's a truth that you need to understand: Politics is not compatible with sound science.

To be scientifically valid, a theory must be dis-provable. Contrary to 1970's predictions, we're not in an ice age. Contrary to 1990's predictions, the earth is not warming overall. Data is mixed, and open to interpretation. So now it's called "Climate Change" and any weather event can be blamed on it. In short, the theory is now immune from being disproved. A theory that cannot be disproved is called DOGMA, and thus ceases to be in any way scientific.

Meanwhile... While you look the other way... Fukushima... Bayou Corne... Deepwater Horizon... Hanford... Archangel... and too many other REAL problems that politicians don't want to touch.

So why don't you focus on the real problems here on the ground, and get you head out of the clouds of other people's dogma?

 

[sunapple]

Here's a truth that you need to understand: Politics is not compatible with sound science.

To be scientifically valid, a theory must be dis-provable. Contrary to 1970's predictions, we're not in an ice age. Contrary to 1990's predictions, the earth is not warming overall. Data is mixed, and open to interpretation. So now it's called "Climate Change" and any weather event can be blamed on it. In short, the theory is now immune from being disproved. A theory that cannot be disproved is called DOGMA, and thus ceases to be in any way scientific.

Meanwhile... While you look the other way... Fukushima... Bayou Corne... Deepwater Horizon... Hanford... Archangel... and too many other REAL problems that politicians don't want to touch.

So why don't you focus on the real problems here on the ground, and get you head out of the clouds of other people's dogma?

Judging by the examples you give it seems like your information is not accurate (volcanos = false, ice age predictions in the 70s = basically a myth, earth not warming up = proven to be false). The data doesn't seem "open to interpretation" to me, I've seen a lot of data and studies coming to the same conclusions.

Basically all research is telling us that global warming is real and I've yet to see compelling facts that disprove this. I've been studying sustainable technologies for the last 6 months and there's no doubt in my mind, or anyone's that I've met, that global warming is happening.

Politics doesn't care about anything long-term, basically. To achieve some minor short-term goals, they just ignore science. Fossil fuels are running out, renewable energy is becoming more efficient and cheaper every year, and yet somehow Trump think that jobs in the coal industry provide people with steady jobs? That's a bad decision even without climate change in the balance.

I've visited Chernobyl three years ago and it made a huge impact on me. I fully believe there're dozens of disasters that have or are happening around the world. Politicians, big corporations, it's just about money and keeping certain people happy for them. But climate change, while they might use it to cover-up there mistakes, is still a real thing.

There's luckily a lot of great initiatives around the world and awareness is pretty high, at least where I live (green left parties in the government got a lot of votes last month). The focus should be on sustainability in our everyday lives, as well as the bigger problems.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Judging by the examples you give it seems like your information is not accurate (volcanos = false, ice age predictions in the 70s = basically a myth, earth not warming up = proven to be false). The data doesn't seem "open to interpretation" to me, I've seen a lot of data and studies coming to the same conclusions.

Ok. You don't believe my points, and I'm going to be deeply suspicious of yours. But we at least agree that the climate does change.

So answer this question: What kind of proof would, in your mind, negate each of the following theories:

1) That the climate is changing faster than it has at any other time in the earth's geological history.
2) That that change is primarily being caused by carbon emissions.
3) That man is the primary source of those carbon emissions.
4) That man understands the earth's climatic engine well enough to make accurate predictions about our future climate.
5) That man is capable of significantly reducing these emissions without a massive reduction in world population.

 

[sunapple]

Ok. You don't believe my points, and I'm going to be deeply suspicious of yours. But we at least agree that the climate does change.

So answer this question: What kind of proof would, in your mind, negate each of the following theories:

1) That the climate is changing faster than it has at any other time in the earth's geological history.
2) That that change is primarily being caused by carbon emissions.
3) That man is the primary source of those carbon emissions.
4) That man understands the earth's climatic engine well enough to make accurate predictions about our future climate.
5) That man is capable of significantly reducing these emissions without a massive reduction in world population.

The theories are not easily explained. This doesn't prove your point though. Simply because you don't understand the science or because you're not able to comprehend it doesn't mean it's not right. You're probably right in saying that there're conflicting studies from the past, but as time goes on new evidence and technologies come about.

I can explain some parts of the theories you mentioned, but that's pretty much as far as my current knowledge goes as this isn't really my field. I will try however, because I find this rather interesting.

1) Determining the climate from long ago is done by looking at the vegetation and other signs in the earth's layers, there's a lot to it that I don't have all the knowledge of. I don't know if it's true that it's currently more than ever before (doubt it), I think it's about the current rise being more than you would expect from the interglacial we're in (so compared to measurements from the last few thousand years instead of millions, a 4,5-billion-year-old earth has gone through a lot I'd imagine).

2) Then of course an important piece to the puzzle is the correlation between the rise in temperature and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I'm aware of the skepticism surrounding the evidence found in the ice cores and I know there's also an answer to that. Like the other facts mentioned here, there's much more to it than I currently understand since I'm not a scientist and didn't specifically study this topic. I'd say it's still solid science that could be disproven, or whatever it is you're looking for exactly.

3) I believe isotopic signature is the main way of telling which CO2 comes from volcanic activity and which is from human activity. The amount measured for human activity actually tallies with the known amount of CO2 production. This told us for example that the volcanic activity accounts for 500 million tons of CO2 which is not even 2% of the 30 billion tons from human activity per year.

4) There's a lot of reason to believe we do know how it works, however complicated it is. The Green House effect is a real and measurable thing that relies on, mainly, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to provide with a certain level of trapped radiation from the sun. No Green House effect means the earth will be one big snowball, to much of it and the temperatures rise significantly. There's the axis of the earth which changes as the course of the planets in our solar system changes over millions of years, positive feedback loops like the albedo effect, ocean currents, natural breathing of the earth between plants growing and dying every year, etcetera.

5) The ever increasing world population is the main problem we have, that's not only about climate change but also about the bio-capacity of the earth which makes it unsustainable. We're burning fossil fuels which we will soon run out of, making renewable energy the only option (and soon the cheapest). If every country sets their minds to living in a sustainable way, it is possible to massively reduce our emissions. Combined with the actual effect of climate change that we should all want to avoid, I'd say there's enough motivation and we're in the middle of a huge transition (that will take some time of course).

 

[s2mikey]

All volcanic activity on earth combined per year is just a fraction of what humans are producing (whatever source was easiest to find).

Agreed, let's focus on climate change which is a real and measurable problem that affects everyone around the world. Denying climate change over and over again like medieval monks is even more problematic than reopening coal mines.

Hmmm. Not too sure about that. The data is conflicted, for sure. But, the scientists that didnt "buy into" the hype & BS were silenced. Climate Change is about control and trying to tell people what to do. The elites want it that way. Of course, lets see them give up their lifestyles and all that. Lead by example. Right? Nah - its easier to push arond the little people.

Look, everyone is on board with sensible, cost-effective things we can all do to keep the air and water clean. But the climate change agenda goes way too far. If it was up to them they'd have us living on top each of each other in single-room huts in city centers riding bikes to our lame jobs. No property owned. No fun. But they'd still have their mansions and Ferrari collections. And helicopters. And yachts. No thanks.

 

[sunapple]

Hmmm. Not too sure about that. The data is conflicted, for sure. But, the scientists that didnt "buy into" the hype & BS were silenced. Climate Change is about control and trying to tell people what to do. The elites want it that way. Of course, lets see them give up their lifestyles and all that. Lead by example. Right? Nah - its easier to push arond the little people.

Look, everyone is on board with sensible, cost-effective things we can all do to keep the air and water clean. But the climate change agenda goes way too far. If it was up to them they'd have us living on top each of each other in single-room huts in city centers riding bikes to our lame jobs. No property owned. No fun. But they'd still have their mansions and Ferrari collections. And helicopters. And yachts. No thanks.

I mean, can you make it sound more like a conspiracy theory?

Tell me this then; the most powerful companies in the world and some of the richest all got their wealth from oil. A fossil fuel that is the opposite of renewable energy. How does that make sense?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Where did you address my actual point, which is highlighted in what I had said:

Instead, you focused on the political correctness part which isn't my point at all. Calling out you falsely claiming that was my point isn't "argument by insult." As a reminder, this was your reply to my post, which didn't address my point at all, but was an attempt to discredit mine by focusing on the part that wasn't my point and pretending you defeated it (even though you hadn't even defeated the part about political correctness).

I did address your point, such as it was. Nothing was falsely claimed. Again, it appears to me that you simply disliked a response that did accept your basic premises. You were the one who chose to introduce "political correctness" into your argument, to which I responded. You were also the one who chose to accuse me of dishonesty, to which I also responded.

Just to reiterate my point, population and environmental degradation are not proportional. How natural resources are treated by the people who are on the planet is the main variable. Relatively small numbers of people who abuse natural resources can degrade them far more quickly and thoroughly than large numbers who don't. This is trivially easy to prove. Rivers that were killed dead from being used as open sewers and industrial waste dumps 150 years ago, when the world's population was far smaller, are now clean and sustain life again. That happened because we decided to care. The same is true of the air.

BTW, I am not interested in defeats or victories. That is not the purpose of a discussion.

 

[orev]

Malls are likely to buy the cheapest power they can. It is unlikely “green” energy would be always the least expensive. I know that in the state where I live, the vast majority of power is derived from natural gas and nuclear sources. I know this because my cousin writes energy policy for the state. The point was that Apple probably only includes energy sourcing data for property that Apple owns... this isn’t an outrageous idea.

No doubt each store in a mall has their own electric meter, like any other rental property. That means they have their own account, and can pay rates for renewables. The malls themselves would only buy power for the common spaces.

 

[Raid]

The theories are not easily explained.

Good on you for trying, there's a pretty long thread in here a few years back about climate change... bottom line is the rate of change is unprecedented in earth's history (as best we can tell) and anything like it has lead to mass global extinctions. The sheer scale of this issue is daunting which makes people not want to believe. Like it or not a warmer earth is not good for our ecosystem; and reducing fossil fuel consumption and encouraging renewable energy is the best long term solution to balance our demands for modern life and a stable ecosystem.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Global warming and climate change is a fact. The only people disputing this are Mr. Pruitt (who never should have been put in charge of the EPA), Trump and his followers. Companies are polluting the water with chemical dumping, they are pumping green houses gases into the atmosphere, the arctic and antarctic ice shelfs are melting and raising the sea to flood land currently at or below sea level.... these are things we can see happening and we know the cause.

The real issue is, why do you put Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA, when on his very own LinkedIn page, Pruitt describes himself as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” His (and the President's) agenda is obvious. Pad the pockets of large companies by any means necessary. While this doesn't effect Apple's own operations, it is good to see companies like Apple fighting against a man that cares nothing for the environment. I applaud them for doing everything in their power to stop Pruitt and Trump from turning the US into a toxic waste zone.

 

[toddzrx]

Even liars tell the truth some of the time - doesn’t make them trustworthy. It’s irrelevant if they occasionally tell the truth or use actual data when their end goal is to deceive people about climate change. That’s the oldest trick in the book for conspiracy nuts. Sprinkle in just enough facts to sound credible to trick people into believing the BS that follows.

The other article you linked was by Ross McKitrick, another climate denier who uses similar tactics.

If these are your sources, then I stand by my original comment: nothing you say should be taken seriously regarding climate.

Wow, you are showing your AGW colors loud and proud. So much so that you choose to attack a straw man instead of engaging with the data I cited. Which is one of the reasons that the AGW movement in general continues to fade into the sunset.

And by the way, how does one "deny" the climate?
[doublepost=1523409042][/doublepost]

LOL Fraser Institute.
Did you see what I said about the Tobacco Strategy?
Do you know what the Fraser Institute is? It's a conservative thinktank founded by a logging baron. They specialize in creating media narratives for industry. It's the Tobacco Strategy in a nutshell. It is NOT a scientific foundation.

Let me state plainly: I could not care less what non-scientists, industry lobbyists, political pundits, or internet commenters have to say. There is ZERO scientific uncertainty that man-made climate change is real

Buddy, get your head out of the sand. There are plenty of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS that have huge problems with AGW theory.
[doublepost=1523409430][/doublepost]

You're a climate denialist and you're talking junk. I didn't spend thousands of Euros studying climate science only to be told by some random rightwing science denier how the planet works.

I highlight one of your lines in bold to make an example of what an ignorant person you are.

I'd might be inclined to believe you if you cited some evidence or facts instead of attacking my person, which isn't terribly scientific. I happen to have been trained as an electrical engineer. How can I be a science denier with that kind of background?

If anyone's talking junk here, that would be you and your petty insults.
[doublepost=1523409857][/doublepost]

In reality, there is no doubt at all in the scientific community about the existence of man-made climate change.

100% wrong.

What I don't doubt is that a cabal of so-called scientists continue to receive funding for their pet AGW research projects in order to concoct "evidence" so the EPA and other government agencies can provide justification for more funding and more regulations. It's quite the circle-jerk.
[doublepost=1523409984][/doublepost]

Too true! It’s a nice reminder that idiots are in charge of the country right now

Maybe. But at list the current idiot in charge is a much better option than the other idiot he ran against. Glad we dodged that bullet!
[doublepost=1523410197][/doublepost]

Using your "argument":
Should we also not be required to pay into social security? I'd personally prefer to invest my own retirement money - I can do a lot better than the returns SS gets.
Should emergency room's turn away anyone w/o insurance? I prefer to live in a humane society.
How about taxes? Should you then not be required to pay taxes if you disagree with what they're being spent on?
[doublepost=1523282450][/doublepost]

Uh, those are terrible points, and don't even answer my argument.

That said, I'd love to see Social Security shut down; it's a legal pyramid scheme after all. Emergency rooms don't turn people away, nor should they.

 

[unobtainium]

Buddy, get your head out of the sand. There are plenty of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS that have huge problems with AGW theory.

No, there really aren't. As I said, it's the Tobacco Strategy, used by tobacco companies in the 1950s. Scientists figured out that smoking causes cancer, so the industry funded thinktanks and hired a few crackpots to make public statements contrary to the accepted science. The public got confused and carried on as usual - smoking rates actually ROSE in the 1950s. Don't they all look dumb now :/

It's your head that's in the sand.

 

[deanthedev]

Wow, you are showing your AGW colors loud and proud. So much so that you choose to attack a straw man instead of engaging with the data I cited. Which is one of the reasons that the AGW movement in general continues to fade into the sunset.

And by the way, how does one "deny" the climate?
[doublepost=1523409042][/doublepost]

Buddy, get your head out of the sand. There are plenty of ACTUAL SCIENTISTS that have huge problems with AGW theory.
[doublepost=1523409430][/doublepost]

I'd might be inclined to believe you if you cited some evidence or facts instead of attacking my person, which isn't terribly scientific. I happen to have been trained as an electrical engineer. How can I be a science denier with that kind of background?

If anyone's talking junk here, that would be you and your petty insults.
[doublepost=1523409857][/doublepost]

100% wrong.

What I don't doubt is that a cabal of so-called scientists continue to receive funding for their pet AGW research projects in order to concoct "evidence" so the EPA and other government agencies can provide justification for more funding and more regulations. It's quite the circle-jerk.
[doublepost=1523409984][/doublepost]

Maybe. But at list the current idiot in charge is a much better option than the other idiot he ran against. Glad we dodged that bullet!
[doublepost=1523410197][/doublepost]

Uh, those are terrible points, and don't even answer my argument.

That said, I'd love to see Social Security shut down; it's a legal pyramid scheme after all. Emergency rooms don't turn people away, nor should they.

So sorry the truth upsets you. Now run back to your conspiracy sites and chat away with others gullible enough to believe the BS they’re spouting.

 

[Sedulous]

No doubt each store in a mall has their own electric meter, like any other rental property. That means they have their own account, and can pay rates for renewables. The malls themselves would only buy power for the common spaces.

This has also been answered by Apple. 100% renewable stat includes retail. It is weird how people here jumped all over my suggestion that it was possible the energy sourcing Apple stated might not include retail. And hooray, Apple answered that question the very next day. Case closed. Everyone can relax.

 

[RedKite]

But at list t

At list? It’s not the only mistake you’ve made..... are you a native English speaker?

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

The theories are not easily explained. This doesn't prove your point though. Simply because you don't understand the science or because you're not able to comprehend it doesn't mean it's not right. You're probably right in saying that there're conflicting studies from the past, but as time goes on new evidence and technologies come about.

I can explain some parts of the theories you mentioned, but that's pretty much as far as my current knowledge goes as this isn't really my field. I will try however, because I find this rather interesting.

1) Determining the climate from long ago is done by looking at the vegetation and other signs in the earth's layers, there's a lot to it that I don't have all the knowledge of. I don't know if it's true that it's currently more than ever before (doubt it), I think it's about the current rise being more than you would expect from the interglacial we're in (so compared to measurements from the last few thousand years instead of millions, a 4,5-billion-year-old earth has gone through a lot I'd imagine).

2) Then of course an important piece to the puzzle is the correlation between the rise in temperature and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I'm aware of the skepticism surrounding the evidence found in the ice cores and I know there's also an answer to that. Like the other facts mentioned here, there's much more to it than I currently understand since I'm not a scientist and didn't specifically study this topic. I'd say it's still solid science that could be disproven, or whatever it is you're looking for exactly.

3) I believe isotopic signature is the main way of telling which CO2 comes from volcanic activity and which is from human activity. The amount measured for human activity actually tallies with the known amount of CO2 production. This told us for example that the volcanic activity accounts for 500 million tons of CO2 which is not even 2% of the 30 billion tons from human activity per year.

4) There's a lot of reason to believe we do know how it works, however complicated it is. The Green House effect is a real and measurable thing that relies on, mainly, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to provide with a certain level of trapped radiation from the sun. No Green House effect means the earth will be one big snowball, to much of it and the temperatures rise significantly. There's the axis of the earth which changes as the course of the planets in our solar system changes over millions of years, positive feedback loops like the albedo effect, ocean currents, natural breathing of the earth between plants growing and dying every year, etcetera.

5) The ever increasing world population is the main problem we have, that's not only about climate change but also about the bio-capacity of the earth which makes it unsustainable. We're burning fossil fuels which we will soon run out of, making renewable energy the only option (and soon the cheapest). If every country sets their minds to living in a sustainable way, it is possible to massively reduce our emissions. Combined with the actual effect of climate change that we should all want to avoid, I'd say there's enough motivation and we're in the middle of a huge transition (that will take some time of course).

You’ve not answered my questions Sunapple. I asked what you would accept as proof that each of these theories are false. If you cannot accept anything as proof of a theory being false, then either the theory itself is not scientific (because falsifiability is a precondition of a scientific theory), or you do not understand it, and are merely dogmatically repeating what others say.

But let's go through them anyway...

1) Many scientists have been taking core/vegetation samples and trying to build tables of data. But that's just data. Data itself doesn't draw its own conclusions. Humans do that.

Ever worked in business where you were preparing slide shows for corporate shareholder meetings? I have. It's amazing how much the "official" numbers can be played with. Give the accounting and executive teams 4 hours, and you'll see four VERY different pictures of the company's financial health emerge... All of which are technically "true". It's all about massaging the data to fit a narrative.

Given the polarization of "Climate Change" by the true believers, and the financial rewards involved for towing the party line, I can't imagine that there would be any less playing with the numbers than I saw with the fortune 500 companies that I once worked for.

I once read a report on continental subduction from a science station in South America. In an otherwise boring paragraph near the end, they noted that the measured movement vectors had been "inverted" during the study. Inverted! Do you know that that means? A vector is a mathematical representation of motion. If they inverted their measurements, then it means that the fault they were studying wasn't subducting. It was diverging.

That would be heresy to the established theories of plate tectonics for that region, but guess what? It would fall in line with recent US Navy data that seafloor samples collected closer to that fault were geologically newer than those collected further away. So their data was being played with to fit an accepted "scientific" narrative, and plate tectonics doesn't have anywhere near the level of political or monetary interest as "Climate Change."

Answer: No, the climate is not changing faster than it ever has before. For proof of that, simply consider the wooly mammoths in Siberia that were somehow flash-frozen in the middle of eating lush grass. They were preserved so well that WWII prisoners in Siberia were able to eat their meat when they found them under the permafrost.

What does that, I wonder? The sun turning off for a few minutes? Some rogue celestial body getting between us and the sun? A polar shift? Alien teenagers on bender? Dunno. But it should give pause to anyone who thinks they know everything there is to know about the world's climate.

2) Again... You don't know.

So... What about the levels of methane in the atmosphere over time? You do know that methane traps the sun's heat at 84 TIMES the rate of carbon dioxide, right?

Is anyone measuring that? No, since "Carbon" is the apocalypse buzzword that gets studies funded, and methane is extracted, distributed, and politically protected by big businesses. But it leaks out of every oil well, especially those that are "fracked". It also leaks out of every system of gas piping to residential homes. If man IS warming the planet, then methane will be doing at least as much of the work as carbon dioxide.

Have you even heard of the solar cycle? The eleven year period where the sun's heat output waxes and wains by a small, but significant amount? They're correlated to levels of sun-spot activity, and sun-spots are believed to be "holes" in the sun's corona created by magnetic fields. But magnetic fields require electric currents to form, and both electricity and magnetism have been completely ignored in cosmology for over a century now. So we actually know jack-all about how the sun actually works, and can't expect it to any more steady-state than the earth.

You probably also don't know about the "Little Ice Age" that Europe suffered from 1645 to 1715. Which just so happened to coincide with a solar event called the "Maunder Minimum". When sunspots were extremely rare.

3) Again... You're only looking for carbon dioxide sources. While ignoring solar activity, and the role of methane.

4) Thank you for the elementary school story of global warming. Based, as it is, on looking at Venus, and assuming that it was once Earth-like (which we have no rational basis to believe).

Again, you don't know all of the potential warming factors. Nor, evidently, have you ever worked with computer simulations. Which are only as accurate as the data you feed into them. Don't like the result? Then you trial-and-error your way to the result you want.

But tell me... If we DO know pretty much everything about the Earth's climate... Then why are weather forecasts still so inaccurate? Seems like those expert computer models should be able to give us 99% weather accuracy out to at least a decade if we're going to make compulsory, life-altering decisions based on them. No?

5) The problem isn't overpopulation, so much as how much of that population is unproductive.

There is NO sustainable level of human population that wouldn't see us reduced to the technological and social level of the middle ages. And then we'd just be waiting for a bad ice age, or a large meteor, to wipe us out.

The technological civilization that we enjoy, and which will be the only thing that spreads us to other planets in this solar system, requires a large population. Why? Because we need people to specialize in particular technologies and their sub-branches. A society of subsistence farmers has no way of supporting an expert in rocket engine fuel pump fittings. Or microchip architecture. So for our species to spread, we need a productive society of people specialized in what they do.

What we don't need is people who are being paid not to work.
[doublepost=1523733089][/doublepost]

Global warming and climate change is a fact. The only people disputing this are Mr. Pruitt (who never should have been put in charge of the EPA), Trump and his followers. Companies are polluting the water with chemical dumping, they are pumping green houses gases into the atmosphere, the arctic and antarctic ice shelfs are melting and raising the sea to flood land currently at or below sea level.... these are things we can see happening and we know the cause.

The real issue is, why do you put Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA, when on his very own LinkedIn page, Pruitt describes himself as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” His (and the President's) agenda is obvious. Pad the pockets of large companies by any means necessary. While this doesn't effect Apple's own operations, it is good to see companies like Apple fighting against a man that cares nothing for the environment. I applaud them for doing everything in their power to stop Pruitt and Trump from turning the US into a toxic waste zone.

People who jump into political rants after declaring something a "fact" do no service to their cause. Trump being an idiot politician is not an argument for, or against a real, testable scientific theory.

 

[sunapple]

You’ve not answered my questions Sunapple. I asked what you would accept as proof that each of these theories are false. If you cannot accept anything as proof of a theory being false, then either the theory itself is not scientific (because falsifiability is a precondition of a scientific theory), or you do not understand it, and are merely dogmatically repeating what others say.

I’ll respond to the rest later but let me just say this; you were asking an almost impossible question. I’m aware that I responded differently.

There’s data, there’s studies, conclusions, scientist, falsified information, media, etcetera. It’s a big topic, lots of opinions and discussion.

I choose to believe global warming and I can base it on research that I can stand behind. Some of it is basic textbook stuff, others from various other sources. I’m no expert though.

You choose to believe in research that you found and you’re searching for validation in those same corners on the internet. You’re no expert either though.

You ask me to provide you with evidence that proves my believe wrong, or rather to prove it’s not a dogma. I could ask you the same thing, but I’d rather see the details that make up your theories. That’s why I’ve shared mine, now I can respond to your comments again. I could also ask how you’re not believing in a dogma.

You choose to not believe the conclusions drawn from the data, how is that much different from me choosing to believe it? Either you disregard the subject all together or you choose a side and defend it by echoing what others (scientists and whatnot) are saying.

 

[s2mikey]

The CO2 levels in the atmosfeer are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years and they've been climbing since the Industrial Revolution, thus proving that we as humanity are causing a change to the climate that's bigger than the normal climate change that you're talking of. This is very important to understand.

You're denying that man-made climate change is a real problem and you're just pointing fingers at corporations and governments. Who put a man in the Oval Office who pulled out of the Paris Agreement and reverses course on important environmental regulations? People who need to educate themselves better.

Society needs to be aware of the mess that we're making so it can take some proper action.

The Paris "agreement" was a total BS situation that essentially was going to cost the USA a ton of money while other countries paid a lot less or not at all. The global climate change "agenda" is very much about getting at the wallets of the US taxpayer and transferring wealth to other nations. This is why there is so much animosity towards the whole thing.

Its never just simple, effective changes we can all take part in to help. It has to be draconian, job-kiling, tax-raising, energy-cost increasing regulations that really screw the working class and disrupt our lives. Meanwhile, the rich politicians & celebrities just carry on as usual with their mansions, helicopters, private jets, Ferrari collections and estates that create more carbon than my entire housing track.

So - sorry..... but Im OUT until THEY lead by example.