Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Reacts to Apple's Withdrawal Over Climate Change Policies

NT1440 said:
You've got to be joking.

You think there is a WORLDWIDE massive conspiracy that has the vast majority of scientists sharing the same opinion?
Click to expand...

Bingo! I think you've got it now!

This controversy is like any other....follow the trail of money and you'll eventually get to the TRUE issue.

And to correct your statement, the VAST MAJORITY of scientist do not share this opinion. Perhaps in the sample of literature you've read this is true, but most guys who study weather patterns and climate trends for a living do NOT subscribe to man-made global warming. No one questions that there has been a slight upward trend in temperatures across the globe. It's the source of that rise that is in dispute. It is vain in the extreme to believe that humans are responsible.
 
I know the adage about arguing on the internet, but apparently I can't help myself...

Seriously, some of you folks need to learn a little science before you start weighing in. The vast majority of climate scientists (people who actually study this stuff) are convinced not only of global climate change, but that there is an anthropogenic basis for it. Yes, there is a small minority who does not agree (there is also a very small minority who does not believe in evolution). If a scientist could falsify the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, they would be rich and famous, not marginalized and accused of crackpottery.

But people will believe whatever matches their worldview (or that of their political party).
 
fishdoc said:
I know the adage about arguing on the internet, but apparently I can't help myself...

Seriously, some of you folks need to learn a little science before you start weighing in. The vast majority of climate scientists (people who actually study this stuff) are convinced not only of global climate change, but that there is an anthropogenic basis for it. Yes, there is a small minority who does not agree (there is also a very small minority who does not believe in evolution). If a scientist could falsify the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, they would be rich and famous, not marginalized and accused of crackpottery.

But people will believe whatever matches their worldview (or that of their political party).
Click to expand...

This statement is simply untrue. Using a $5 word like "anthropogenic" will not make it so, either. No where is it written, nor has it ever been, that the so-called "vast majority" of scientists buy into this crap. Perhaps it is you that needs to learn a little science or, more to the point, common sense.
 
U.S. Chamber of Fascism

The U.S. COC is a runaway train of corporate fatcats and lobbyists, and their only purpose is to generate the best government money can buy through creative legislation that has nothing to do with the best interests of the country or the citizenry.
 
ApplePlectic said:
Bingo! I think you've got it now!

This controversy is like any other....follow the trail of money and you'll eventually get to the TRUE issue.

And to correct your statement, the VAST MAJORITY of scientist do not share this opinion. Perhaps in the sample of literature you've read this is true, but most guys who study weather patterns and climate trends for a living do NOT subscribe to man-made global warming. No one questions that there has been a slight upward trend in temperatures across the globe. It's the source of that rise that is in dispute. It is vain in the extreme to believe that humans are responsible.
Click to expand...

This sounds very similar to ideas held into 1950s and even 70s about natural resources. People thought there's no way we could deplete the limitless supplies of minerals and oil. In around 1970, the U.S. hit peak oil production, and its been decreasing ever since...
 
moobey said:
Have you ever heard of something called the precautionary principle?

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been consistently rising according to the Mauna Loa Observatory. We've cut down approximately half of our forests in the world, a major Carbon sink. Are we really sure we're not causing harm? Is this something that we can afford to mess with, with no scientific proof that it won't cause damage?

Population, deforesting, biodiversity, sustainability, overharvesting/grazing, climate change, pollution, soil condition, water, etc... The future don't look so bright, and because of people like you, there's a good chance it won't get any brighter.
Click to expand...

no, i hadn't until now and according to your definition, the burden of proof falls on those advocating for making change and they are failing to produce just that. that principle does sound quite scary as it really gives anyone or any group with any power to propose an argument and expect others to follow blindly.

also, if you read the posts, i am very pro-environment but not pro-climate change legislation. and i personally cannot affect the "not so bright future" you are looking forward to. sorry.
 
moobey said:
This sounds very similar to ideas held into 1950s and even 70s about natural resources. People thought there's no way we could deplete the limitless supplies of minerals and oil. In around 1970, the U.S. hit peak oil production, and its been decreasing ever since...
Click to expand...


You're talking apples to oranges here, dude. That should be pretty obvious.
 
fishdoc said:
Seriously, some of you folks need to learn a little science before you start weighing in. The vast majority of climate scientists (people who actually study this stuff) are convinced not only of global climate change, but that there is an anthropogenic basis for it.
Click to expand...

Vast majority of scientists or vast majority of climate scientists? Climate change belief does not necessarily equate to belief in global warming theory.

fishdoc said:
Yes, there is a small minority who does not agree (there is also a very small minority who does not believe in evolution).
Click to expand...

Actually, both of these assessments are wrong... According to a recent Gallup polls, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated and based on recent polls four in ten Americans don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nonetheless, there is no lock on global warming; it is still a theory.

We should return to topic, i.e., Apple patronizing China and its unregulated emissions and selling out our own Chamber of Commerce.... that deserves critical commentary and condemnation.
 
Xibalba said:
no, i hadn't until now and according to your definition, the burden of proof falls on those advocating for making change and they are failing to produce just that. that principle does sound quite scary as it really gives anyone or any group with any power to propose an argument and expect others to follow blindly.

also, if you read the posts, i am very pro-environment but not pro-climate change legislation. and i personally cannot affect the "not so bright future" you are looking forward to. sorry.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you are pro-environment, maybe I was a little rash, scratch that, I was. But you misunderstood the precautionary principle completely. The CHANGE here, is those releasing far more CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide than has ever been released, as well as those destroying forests. Those arguing that the release of such gases don't harm the environment in any way, by the precautionary principle, should prove that they indeed aren't causing any damage. I'm fairly certain that no one has yet come out with indisputable evidence that it is isn't causing damage.

The precautionary principle is utilized in the pharmaceutical industry by the way. Companies must prove that their new drug won't do any harm to the user, prior to releasing it to the general public.
 
ApplePlectic said:
You're talking apples to oranges here, dude. That should be pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

True, but I'm just making the point that people have been pretty certain of long held assumptions in the past, only to have them be proven completely wrong later. Why not be on the side of caution?
 
Jesus....sometimes I hate being an American. Some of my fellow citizens make me sick.
 
the fact that you consider "anthropogenic" a $5 word speaks volumes.

Yes, most climate scientists (who who actually study the topic under discussion) believe that global climate change is "caused by humans" (feel better now?). The vast majority of scientists broadly? I would suspect that is true as well, although I confess I have never seen that poll done (nor would I find it very valuable).

Does that make it necessarily true? Of course not - science has been wrong before. But I trust the opinions of those who study the topic and publish in peer-reviewed journals over internet experts.


ApplePlectic said:
This statement is simply untrue. Using a $5 word like "anthropogenic" will not make it so, either. No where is it written, nor has it ever been, that the so-called "vast majority" of scientists buy into this crap. Perhaps it is you that needs to learn a little science or, more to the point, common sense.
Click to expand...
 
moobey said:
Well I'm glad you are pro-environment, maybe I was a little rash. But you misunderstood the precautionary principle completely. The CHANGE here, is those releasing far more CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide than has ever been released, as well as those destroying forests. Those arguing that the release of such gases don't harm the environment in any way, by the precautionary principle, should prove that they indeed aren't causing any damage. I'm fairly certain that no one has yet come out with indisputable evidence that it is isn't causing damage.

The precautionary principle is utilized in the pharmaceutical industry by the way. Companies must prove that their new drug won't do any harm to the user, prior to releasing it to the general public.
Click to expand...

no you weren't rash - just stating your point - and i took no offense. you were right - i did initially misunderstand your precautionary principle. however, the argument does become somewhat circular as it would be tough to prove no damage just as it has been tough to draw a relationship to current data and environmental trends proving that there is damage. i agree it is then a tough decision about what to do then of course as the principle supports moving forward with protecting us from "not-provable" harm by actions to cause "not-provable" benefits.

interesting relationship to the medical field regarding pharmaceuticals. of course, that is another difficult subject with the relationship of pharmaceuticals and proving harm and the most unfortunate aspect is the legal aggression through lawsuits that then results in an increase in health care costs. blah blah blah...but that's off topic.
 
My grandfather was a meteorologist during WWII. His best friend was John Hope, the founder of the Hurricane Center for NOAA. His favorite thing to tell me was that one of the biggest problems facing forecasters was they had no idea how clouds form. There are tons of theories, but no real answer to their formation, or their varying formations.

I spent some time a few years ago researching the phenomenon when I came across one of the most intriguing scientist I have ever read about. You should all take some time to read about him as well. Apple would be doing itself a favor and siding with the Dalai Lama and fighting for human rights over a natural weather cycle.

Henrik Svensmark

They supported Prop 8, i think they should continue to support civil rights activists by doing their labor here, or paying fair wages in 3rd world countries. It is such a hypocritical position to take by supporting China and it's lack of human rights and blaming a U.S. committee for not helping the earth. People first, right Apple? Or are you making iPods for glaciers now?
 
The Chamber is made up of members.
The Chamber represents the interests of the members.
The Chamber is telling its member that it does not understand what its interests are.

Does this not seem totally out of whack to anyone else?
 
Xibalba said:
no you weren't rash - just stating your point - and i took no offense. you were right - i did initially misunderstand your precautionary principle. however, the argument does become somewhat circular as it would be tough to prove no damage just as it has been tough to draw a relationship to current data and environmental trends proving that there is damage. i agree it is then a tough decision about what to do then of course as the principle supports moving forward with protecting us from "not-provable" harm by actions to cause "not-provable" benefits.
Click to expand...

Thanks for having an open mind. Yes, it is indeed a very tough decision, I just wish that more people would at least look at both sides of the argument. Now, back to the original article. Whatever that was...
 
Oh Please

Why is it that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming lack any basic education on the subject. And no I'm not talking about wikipedia or the 14 year old's blog on the internet they found for evidence but actual scientific research. Ignorance always leads to "the world is flat" "earth is center of the universe" mentality. Please I pray of you just study the facts, at least see in full what the arguments against it are. (easy place to start for those who don't read http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/ ) I'm confident with study of the facts not politicians you'll find out the truth. Doctors got that realization once they studied the effects of bloodletting and saw that it was harmful.
 
MrPol said:
Agreed. These climate change / darwin denyers are just sad.
Click to expand...

I think the Darwin Pontificators are sadder! And the Climate Change fanatics are unrealistic dreamers. Weather is something that changes in both directions over eons. What man does in the next 50 years is hardly going to make a dent in it one way or the other...
 
fishdoc said:
Yes, most climate scientists (who who actually study the topic under discussion) believe that global climate change is "caused by humans" (feel better now?). The vast majority of scientists broadly? I would suspect that is true as well, although I confess I have never seen that poll done (nor would I find it very valuable).
Click to expand...

I think the consensus is, that MOST "Climatologists" think that Humans have a profound effect on the current "warming" trend. There are many scientific fields that have differing views. Scientists who study the sun, geologists, glaciaologists, volcanologists, paleontologists, botanists and many anthropologists have different opinions regarding the matter.

I have a background in geology at a top glacier research school. It is interesting to know that exposed basalt rock from melting glaciers in the Himalayas react with CO2 to form carbon deposits like a giant scrubber. Then melt water wears down the carbon deposits from the rock into rivers that feed the Ganges River delta. The carbon cycle is fairly well balanced, and many glaciaologists debate whether mega events like solar changes and volcanic activity play the bigger role then CO2 increases.

There are many simple explanations to increases in CO2 deposits that people claim are records of causes for global warming. When a solar flare that wipes out half the worlds species, causes CO2 increases from rotting living things may be an effect of the temperature change. It is a good DEBATE, not sound scientific PROOF to be used to cripple businesses and ignore REAL human rights violations.
 
Virgilisleading said:
Why is it that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming lack any basic education on the subject. And no I'm not talking about wikipedia or the 14 year old's blog on the internet they found for evidence but actual scientific research. Ignorance always leads to "the world is flat" "earth is center of the universe" mentality. Please I pray of you just study the facts, at least see in full what the arguments against it are. (easy place to start for those who don't read http://www.viddler.com/explore/micheleforan/videos/2/ ) I'm confident with study of the facts not politicians you'll find out the truth. Doctors got that realization once they studied the effects of bloodletting and saw that it was harmful.
Click to expand...

Why is it that those who do not "believe" in anthropogenic climate change lack any basic education on the subject. Furthermore, they insist on posting FUD videos without even knowing why the video is FUD.

Perhaps you might be persuaded to read the real science on the topic. You might find these a little more respectable than viddler.com. Note, this is written by scientists, not politicians:
IPCC Synthesis Report
The Physical Science Basis
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
Mitigation of Climate Change

And there is no believeing involved with anthropogenic influences on climate change. It is fact and is scientifically accepted. It would be like asking do I believe in oxygen.

I would say my soon to be completed Ph.D. education in meteorology (which included professors who authored the IPCC) is a level beyond the Wikipedia knowledge you reference.
 
MacDSmith2 said:
I think the Darwin Pontificators are sadder! And the Climate Change fanatics are unrealistic dreamers. Weather is something that changes in both directions over eons. What man does in the next 50 years is hardly going to make a dent in it one way or the other...
Click to expand...

Really? How do you idiots deny things that the VAST majority of scientists agree with? Is it just because your fanatical, American Taliban, religious leaders tell you? The bible is just a book of myths and allegory, not facts.
 
So let me get this straight - those who are actually in the field of climatology may feel one way about climate, but people from other fields don't generally agree? As an oceanographer, I can say that A) I do not think that the other fields are too different in opinion from that of climatologists (although I have only anecdotal evidence for that, I have never seen a study that included all scientific fields - there is a recent one selecting specifically all geoscientists, however, which shows an overwhelming support), and B) even if that were true, I would trust the opinion of climate scientists about climate over that of a botanist or a geneticist.

Second, I think it is odd to say that "scientific proof" is being used to "ignore REAL human rights violations". Is Apple saying that since there is global climate change they need to ignore human rights issues? I must have missed that part.


miketcool said:
I think the consensus is, that MOST "Climatologists" think that Humans have a profound effect on the current "warming" trend. There are many scientific fields that have differing views. Scientists who study the sun, geologists, glaciaologists, volcanologists, paleontologists, botanists and many anthropologists have different opinions regarding the matter.

I have a background in geology at a top glacier research school. It is interesting to know that exposed basalt rock from melting glaciers in the Himalayas react with CO2 to form carbon deposits like a giant scrubber. Then melt water wears down the carbon deposits from the rock into rivers that feed the Ganges River delta. The carbon cycle is fairly well balanced, and many glaciaologists debate whether mega events like solar changes and volcanic activity play the bigger role then CO2 increases.

There are many simple explanations to increases in CO2 deposits that people claim are records of causes for global warming. When a solar flare that wipes out half the worlds species, causes CO2 increases from rotting living things may be an effect of the temperature change. It is a good DEBATE, not sound scientific PROOF to be used to cripple businesses and ignore REAL human rights violations.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back