Apple Reiterates Commitment to Obama Era Climate Pledge

[diipii]

Nobody really believes all that " we are killing the planet by leaving our TVs on standby" poop.

 

[s2mikey]

Climate scientists cannot predict the wind, rain, etc tomorrow, they can't predict the the hurricane season, they can't predict snowfall next winter, etc. There is absolutely nothing to verify that current climate models mean anything other than interesting research. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Our local professional weather forecaster uses an American model and a European model, neither agree at all. Its just like the stock market, I can create a mathematical model that predicts tomorrow's stock prices with 90% accuracy based on historical data and yet it won't accurately report tomorrows stock prices.

Part of the problem here is that scientists don't bother to really understand statistics. You can't hunt around for a model and then declare victory when you find it. That is not how statistics work, regardless of what you have been taught.

The other part of the problem is that people tend to find what they are paid to find even if they have to cut corners to protect their income. Now I am not saying that any given climate scientists purposefully (although we now know that a lot do) falsify reports, but they have been trained in school to misuse statistics to prove non-existent facts. It is hard to prove causality, and easy to mistake correlation with causality.

In the medical sciences there are professors at ivy league schools that now believe that 50 to 90 percent of drug studies are not reproducible in followup studies because the statistics were misused and did not prove the research. This is an endemic problem in all research sciences that rely of statistics. In addition, a lay person with a high school diploma can usually read these research studies and invalidate them because the assumptions are often just ignorant. As an engineer and having read 50+ studies that claim to prove man made climate destruction and I stopped reading them because if I applied the logic they used to my engineering work things would fall down, explode, catch fire, fail to work, etc. It is just sloppy work by academics that for what ever reason have turned brain dead. My guess is that the root problem is the money. But who knows. I do know a carpetbagger when I see one and the ones today don't arrive in the dead of night, but come in on the evening news.

Great post - and yeah, the bubble has been burst multiple times on these so-called scientists. They are specualting worse than a backdoor stock broker about this stuff. They have to fudge data to even get it to "sort of" lineup. Even then. Nah. Not buying it and neither is most of the public. Of course, the indoctrinated "sheep" are all over it since they are desperate to be led by others and told what to think. For the rest of the non-conditioned.... we smell the rat.

 

[hagar]

Climate scientists cannot predict the wind, rain, etc tomorrow, they can't predict the the hurricane season, they can't predict snowfall next winter, etc. There is absolutely nothing to verify that current climate models mean anything other than interesting research. Sorry to bust your bubble.

You didn't burst my bubble. You're talking about the weather, I'm talking about climate. You're referring to a meteorologist. I'm a climate scientist. Two completely different subjects.

I suggest you learn the difference if you want to participate in a climate change discussion.

 

[CrashX]

Can you tell me exactly how the Russians "Hacked" the election? Are you sure it's a FACT? Have you seen the actual evidence? Wikileaks states the emails from the DNC they published did not come from the Russians. So what exactly was this HACKING?

Seriously? We know for a FACT that, throughout the election, the Russians were conspiring to elect Trump. You're clearly too partisan to see through such a thinly veiled facade.

Had she been dutifully elected by popular vote, President Clinton's first order of business would have been to focus all of her attention on the Russian interference. Of course, the Republicans would have tried to derail the investigation... obstructing as they always do.

Obama and Harry Reid worked so HARD together to clear the path of obstructionism - greatly expanding the powers of the President and eliminating the filibuster to govern by FORCE as needed to reshape America.

And now the RUSSIANS have infiltrated, handing that power to VERY STUPID BAD PEOPLE who aren't anywhere near smart enough to use it to reshape America correctly.

Now they only have the influence of the media left It's ALL WE HAVE LEFT to protect us against the Russians.

Oh, we are SO doomed But they did take down Nixon for FAR LESS than what Obama did, so Trump will be dispatched soon enough... we can only hope...

And if you can't detect sarcasm, well... THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!!!!! Also THE RUSSIANS!!!!!! Nurse the narrative. The ends only justify the means when the smartest people are guiding the idiots toward enlightenment.


EDIT: For the record, I hate both parties equally. We're just currently in a situation where one of the parties just got caught completely off guard - and it's very amusing to watch the absolutely transparent hypocrisy running wild. Hell you'd think they'd be HAPPY to be out marching and having fun protesting again? But they're SO angry - it's getting a bit tiresome.

 

[groove-agent]

Totally off topic, but looking at that Apple store picture with all the glass, could you imagine the glare on the glossy screens while trying out a Mac? lol

 

[mixel]

Actually find it pretty disgusting how everyone thinks their uneducated opinions somehow hold as much water as people qualified in the subject at hand. Science is not the enemy, the oil companies are openly funding the anti science angle.

Everyone's kids have to deal with this legacy, regardless of your beliefs. There is no harm in making the world cleaner and safer. Money is not as important as the environment - even if it was costly it's worthwhile to clean up our act ASAP. It is possible to do unrecoverable damage. Yes, change is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid destroying entire eco-systems and cause large scale extinctions.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ / http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.WN6S5TnTWhA / http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...hat-global-warming-is-happening-a6753996.html / https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Just read up on the science, damnit. What if you're wrong? Screw you for letting your pride get in the way of renewables and a healthier planet. Even if the climate scientists end up being out with their predictions - OH NO! We improved the planet for no reason!?

Would you recommend keeping a backup of your computers data even though you have no reason to think it's imminently going to fail? Do you have insurance? Why does the planet, home to everything you hold dear, and everyone's children, matter less? Why do you take the opinion of a miniscule (and largely unqualified, or qualified with an added religious, corrupting influence) minority to hold more weight than a qualified majority with data to back themselves up?

 

[Dreamer2go]

I'm neither for nor against (human caused) climate change, I think it's fine if people want to be green, but the temperature thing is interesting. According to the data, in the last 100 or more years the global temperature has risen 1C. Really that's it? That's what we are concerned about? That's what we are throwing billions of dollars towards?

You know, the consequences of rising temperature is quite dire. What you are saying is quite narrow when compared to the greater scope of things.
1-2 degree warmer can cause multitude of problems, such as:

• Corals dying (which is happening right now in Australia and many reefs), which means the whole marine animal ecosystem to deteriorate
• The rise of pandemics by an increase of activities of disease-carrying mosquitos (mosquitos thrive at warmer temperatures. A small amount of water such as water from a pot plant can manifest mosquitos)
• Ice caps melting (which is happening in both poles, causing islands such as Maldives to be flooded over by water, making it inhabitable)

I can list many more.
So yes, it matters.
[doublepost=1490983713][/doublepost]I'm quite baffled to all these "climate change deniers". How can you guys flat out make conspiracy stories on how climate scientists manipulate the data to receive funding? Making this a "green religion"?

97% of the scientistic community has reached a consensus that climate change is real (and how man has influence over the rate of change). Tons of data had been produced, and subjected to multiple fact checks by the scientific community, published in scientific journalism etc. Behind the science, are researchers from reputable scientists from universities AND government agencies like NASA. More neutral bodies such as the United Nations ALSO acknowledges climate change as a real threat to humanity.

So you're telling me the deniers ALL refute this? Okay then, then you might as well just believe that the Earth is flat. Galileo is wrong. Oh by the way, he's a scientist. You guys don't believe in science.
Smoking cannot cause cancer. All the medical research that points out smoking causes cancer is wrong. Medical research and study of human biology is science. You guys don't believe in science.
Newton's Law is wrong. There is also no gravity. Newton is a physicist, a scientist.

Do you get my point? Am I being ridiculous? Because that's what climate change deniers are doing: refuting science. Mind blown.

 

[spacemnspiff]

Our local professional weather forecaster uses an American model and a European model, neither agree at all. Its just like the stock market, I can create a mathematical model that predicts tomorrow's stock prices with 90% accuracy based on historical data and yet it won't accurately report tomorrows stock prices.

There is a fallacy in that argument. What you are sying only proves one thing, that the models are not accurate enough for the granurality or timescales that are being referred to, which probably is not the intent of the models to begin with. The models could be accurate on a completely different timescale, lets say for example - 100 years. That doesn't invalidate the model, the worst case scenario for the model is, it can predict the bounds of predictions, which is good enough to estimate the effect on a best cases basis or a worst cases basis.

Part of the problem here is that scientists don't bother to really understand statistics. You can't hunt around for a model and then declare victory when you find it. That is not how statistics work, regardless of what you have been taught.

Wow, I cannot begin to express how ignorant that comment its. I'll play, what you have there is a PhD dessertation topic on how climate scientists are ignorant about statistics, because statistics are not taught to mathematicians or physicists or climate scientists, it's only the domain of laymen.

In addition, a lay person with a high school diploma can usually read these research studies and invalidate them because the assumptions are often just ignorant. As an engineer and having read 50+ studies that claim to prove man made climate destruction and I stopped reading them because if I applied the logic they used to my engineering work things would fall down, explode, catch fire, fail to work, etc. It is just sloppy work by academics that for what ever reason have turned brain dead. My guess is that the root problem is the money.

From where I come from, an engineer from in another field does not add value to the peer-reviews of my work or comment or sign off on analysis reports that were generated in my field. I dont add value to peer-reviews of field that I dont have expertise over. See where I am going with this, your background in your specific field of engineering has little credibility to review of any climate studies, your conclusions are as good as a layman reviewing any other work, which for the most part is of little value or too simplistic.

Since you are on this high horse of yours, why don't you apply to be peer-reviewer of the publications generated by the climate panels and see how far you get with it. Maybe you could get a PhD in the process and then generate your own models to disprove the findings.

As a layman in climate science, we don't have a choice to whether believe the science or not, we only have a choice of accepting or ignoring it.

 

[Starflyer]

Corals dying (which is happening right now in Australia and many reefs), which means the whole marine animal ecosystem to deteriorate

How did the coral survive when the earths temperature was 3 or 4 degrees higher than it was right now for longer periods?

Ice caps melting (which is happening in both poles, causing islands such as Maldives to be flooded over by water, making it inhabitable)

Source? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that antarctic ice is growing.

97% of the scientistic community has reached a consensus that climate change is real (and how man has influence over the rate of change).

"To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points...Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” writes Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

"It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.

If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?

If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.

MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’"

– Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 IPCC report
[doublepost=1490984929][/doublepost]

Actually find it pretty disgusting how everyone thinks their uneducated opinions somehow hold as much water as people qualified in the subject at hand. Science is not the enemy... regardless of your beliefs.

Yet people will ignore biological science for their beliefs when asked when human life begins or when they pretend that a man is really a woman.

What about when they ignore economic science when they try push Socialism as a good idea?

 

[hagar]

Source? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that antarctic ice is growing

You have been to Antarctica and seen the ice sheets growing?

That's what I mean. People have a certain believe, go quickly over the news of the day and pick up only those things that reinforce their believes. Regardless of source. And Facebook and Google algorithms reinforce this behaviour.

Some parts of the Antarctic ice sheet have indeed seen a modest growth over the last years but overall there is a decline. Some crucial sheets of ice that block huge ice masses are now about to break off and that will accelerate further melting.

North Pole is at an all time low (in recent history) and the Greenland ice sheet is starting to melt as well. Note that this process is irreversible.

 

[Dreamer2go]

How did the coral survive when the earths temperature was 3 or 4 degrees higher than it was right now for longer periods?

Sorry, for the 3-4 degrees higher part, when was this?
I have to add that coral reefs dying aren't just because of climate change, but also from pollution, ocean acidification, coral mining etc.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-t.../what-does-this-mean-for-habitats/coral-reefs

Source? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that antarctic ice is growing.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ce-sheets-are-melting-faster-and-from-beneath
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n1/full/nclimate3180.html

"To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points...Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” writes Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

Cool. Then I guess you should file a petition to ask sites like NASA to stop publishing this consensus.
There seems to always be an argument point for any fact/opinion right?
[doublepost=1490986482][/doublepost]

You have been to Antarctica and seen the ice sheets growing?

That's what I mean. People have a certain believe, go quickly over the news of the day and pick up only those things that reinforce their believes. Regardless of source. And Facebook and Google algorithms reinforce this behaviour.

Some parts of the Antarctic ice sheet have indeed seen a modest growth over the last years but overall there is a decline. Some crucial sheets of ice that block huge ice masses are now about to break off and that will accelerate further melting.

North Pole is at an all time low (in recent history) and the Greenland ice sheet is starting to melt as well. Note that this process is irreversible.

I was actually in Iceland in December 2016. EVERY Icelander I talked to have told me about how the glaciers are melting due to climate change, and that it will become a fjord sometime in the nearby future.
Sad. The glaciers were amazing.

 

[Starflyer]

Then I guess you should file a petition to ask sites like NASA to stop publishing this consensus.

I asked you for a source. Well here is mine. Funny you should mention NASA:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

[Dreamer2go]

I asked you for a source. Well here is mine. Funny you should mention NASA:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Please read my post again.
↑
Source? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that antarctic ice is growing.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ce-sheets-are-melting-faster-and-from-beneath
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n1/full/nclimate3180.html

 

[Starflyer]

T

Please read my post again.
↑
Source? Not that I don't believe you, I have seen that antarctic ice is growing.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ce-sheets-are-melting-faster-and-from-beneath
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n1/full/nclimate3180.html

These state what can happen not what is currently happening.

 

[sk1wbw]

Anybody ever wonder why the republicans will kill the planet but under 8 years of obama, it didn't cool off? Makes you wonder what a democrat did. Pretty soon people will realize that you can't legislate the biosphere.

 

[iReality85]

Want a demonstration of how wrong you are? What planet is the hottest in the solar system? Mercury is closest to the sun... but it isnt' the hottest... not by a wide margin. Venus has a nice thick CO2 atmosphere and it holds in heat so well that it melts lead. That is what atmospheric CO2 does. Earth might have followed Venus except much of the carbon was locked away in the ground.

The problem with stating "that is what atmospheric CO2 does" is that it totally discounts the variety of unique ways that the Earth regulates atmospheric CO2 that its neighboring planets don't. Including but not limited its proximity to the Sun, rotation, distinct seasons, large oceans and land masses which affect oceanic and atmospheric currents, and a biosphere.

Sure, the other planets don't have billions of humans and their industrial endeavors emitting CO2, but extreme geological processes and human CO2 emissions- even on our scale- are not even remotely equivalent.

Venus is the way it is because it has had runaway volcanism for billions of years, the result of its closer proximity to the Sun. As such, most of the CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere came from its mantle. While it's true the greenhouse effect will happen on Earth, it won't for many hundreds of millions, if not billions of years until the sun becomes hotter and expands. Not because of humans.

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2.
The atmosphere of Earth is 0.04% CO2.

 

[Starflyer]

The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years.

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth et al 2011.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-would-emit-methane/
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nhouse-gas-emissions-study-says-a6928126.html
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/04/fracking-leaks-may-make-gas-dirtier-coal
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_climate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/frackingandCO2.html

These are guesses about what will happen, not what is happening now. Right now fracking is reducing emissions.

 

[Dreamer2go]

T


These state what can happen not what is currently happening.

Click on some of the sourced links from the article
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13243
I'm too tired right now it's 3:10am.

Anyways, so I guess you're just another climate change denier.
Since I have literally zero skills in debating or have the real patience to argue with deniers, I'll just leave it to my fellow peers who have more credibility and skills than me.

 

[hagar]

We can throw any data to climate change deniers to convince them, but that won't change their minds, because their opinion is grounded in believe, not in facts and science.

Is the Earth round? Yes
Do humans have their roots in evolution? Yes
Does climate change? Yes
Do humans have a cause in current climate change? Yes

If you don't accept any of the above, you are refuting science, you are denying facts for whatever reasons: politics, religion, greed, money, plain stupidity, etc (note that these reasons are NOT mutually exclusive ). And you're all in the same club: people who say no to science. While science is what makes us evolve as humans, it's what makes us understand the universe and lays the foundations for technology, medicine, and so much more in our modern world.

Don't want to accept that? Fine. But please don't hold the rest of us back while we try to move forward. Don't try to influence other people with your "smarts". Don't teach your kids these backward things. Or better: don't reproduce. And don't go and elect somebody that also refuses these same scientific facts.

So do your thing, create your own bubble, do whatever makes you happy, but don't stop the rest of us from moving forward as a society.

 

[Starflyer]

We can throw any data to climate change deniers to convince them, but that won't change their minds, because their opinion is grounded in believe, not in facts and science.

Is the Earth round? Yes
Do humans have their roots in evolution? Yes
Does climate change? Yes
Do humans have a cause in current climate change? Yes

If you don't accept any of the above, you are refuting science, you are denying facts for whatever reasons: politics, religion, greed, money, plain stupidity, etc (note that these reasons are NOT mutually exclusive ). And you're all in the same club: people who say no to science. While science is what makes us evolve as humans, it's what makes us understand the universe and lays the foundations for technology, medicine, and so much more in our modern world.

Don't want to accept that? Fine. But please don't hold the rest of us back while we try to move forward. Don't try to influence other people with your "smarts". Don't teach your kids these backward things. Or better: don't reproduce. And don't go and elect somebody that also refuses these same scientific facts.

So do your thing, great your own bubble, do whatever makes you happy, but don't stop the rest of us from moving forward as a society.

When does human life begin?

Is the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes?

What are you doing personally to stop climate change?

 

[hagar]

When does human life begin?

Is the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes?

You my friend, are indeed one of the people I was talking about

 

[Starflyer]

You my friend, are indeed one of the people I was talking about

I didn't think you would touch those questions with a ten-foot pole.

 

[melendezest]

Wow.

I'm sorry but to think that humans are not having a significant impact in the environment today is just plain stupid.

There is plenty of evidence out there. But I guess it all depends in who you choose to believe.

The truth was written around 2k+ years ago: Love of money is the at the source of all kinds of evil.

So, how about we make money AND provide jobs AND live well without destroying the environment?

Without the effort (and oversight), we get nowhere.

But hey, I guess in the end it doesn't matter, right?

Just eat, drink, and be merry, because tomorrow? We Die.

Forget our kids, and their kids. They'll have to figure it out on their own, 'cause we ain't going to be here to give a frak. Sucks to be them.

 

[iReality85]

I'm a climate scientist.

I'm genuinely curious, which sub fields of study do you expertise in?

 

[hagar]

I didn't think you would touch those questions with a ten-foot pole.

If this is some clever way to point out scientific uncertainty, I refer you to the precautionary principle that states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking that action.

So in case of climate change, there is scientific consensus, but you still don't want to accept that. You only accept 100%. That's also why you never take a plane, as no-one can guarantee it won't fall out of the sky. You've never taken a pill in your life or seen a doctor, because they do more harm than good. And you never had sex because a condom only gives 99% protection.
[doublepost=1490989953][/doublepost]

I'm genuinely curious, which sub fields of study do you expertise in?

In general: Reconstructing climate of the Devonian, a period in Earth's history when it was much warmer than now. So this gives us great insights in how climate change may impact us.
Specific: Modelling stratigraphic uncertainty on spectral analyses of sediment.