Since we have put the vast majority of our untapped oil and gas reserves off limits, why do you think think our production is decreasing?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Reacts to Apple's Withdrawal Over Climate Change Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since we have put the vast majority of our untapped oil and gas reserves off limits, why do you think think our production is decreasing?
I actually agree with the Chamber of Commerce here. While being "green" is nice, it's expensive, adds more overhead, and is not what this country needs right now. This whole "republican machine" nonsense is hilarious, some of you should read up on the Chicago political machine, and then look where Barack got his political start. He learned to play the game, and play it well.
You demonstrate your lack of basic knowledge on the subject.
Weather does not change over timescales ranging in the eons. That would be climate.
Basic atmospheric chemistry will explain why your "50-year" comment is baseless. I might refer you to the hole in the ozone.
Believe it or not, but differing opinions and different approaches to looking at a phenomenon is a good thing. It's competitive in that sense.
I am just saying that since Apple is releasing press statements about how they are displeased over a Chamber's lack of acceptance of info that Apple accepts; why not release one for Chinese human rights violations? There is clearly defined, no-debate, PROOF that China is a country continuing to support massive human rights violations within it's borders. Why doesn't Apple, who is willing to accept EPA regulations that many businesses struggle to maintain, go ahead and move manufacturing back to America? What is so wrong with using some of that profit to reinvest here and really "Think Different".
And anyone claiming that China is making progress with their massive hydroelectric dams, needs to go talk to one of the MILLIONS displaced by the rise of water in the Three River gorge.
It's ludicrous to build a MASSIVE concrete dam, make animals extinct, ruin an enormous major river ecosystem, displace millions to generate power for factories that abuse and enslave their workers for no health benefits and low pay. Then claim that the dam will slow global warming and stop the rising sea water from displacing millions of people. Remember, by building your Mac in China, Apple is in support of this cycle.
Wiki...as much as I love it, is not a credible source. No one is claiming that CO2 is a pollutant, that's absurd! So...you're exhaling pollution then? It's a greenhouse gas (yes, those occur naturally, but), get your info straight (and from credible sources) before making statements in public.
Actually the major experimental data is now, and has been for a decade, out of wack with the theory. The earth has cooled for the last 10 years, sea levels have not risen. (just google for confirmation. You can find the results in pro-climate change reports, which then dismiss these facts) The problem is the science has become far too politicized to be useful. These 'disagreements' are now dismissed as just statistical aberrations and should be ignored. Most of the 'verified' data has to do with measurable quantities such as C02 levels etc. The problem is that the connections between these measurable items and actual climate variables are highly dependent on very very complex models with many implicit assumptions. These assumptions have, of late, been made in this highly politicized environment and are generally chosen to support future funding efforts, which require agreement with the then current consensus (this is true in all areas of science these days, not just climate change. If your not in the current 'main stream' of thought you don't generally get funded - an unfortunate, but true situation). The very fact that 'scientists' are willing to make proclamations like 'the science is now settled' reveals the depth of this impact. This is counter to the scientific method, especially for such a complex area of research. Remember this same area of research declared the 1970's that the earth was definitely entering its next ice age with almost equal certainty.
Some measurable weather and climate phenomenon might refer you to the spots on the sun, or increases in intra-solar gamma radiation.
Up until a few days ago, narrow minded scientists had been painting ape to human evolution as fact. Now with the addition of Ardi, that whole sequence has been flipped. Scientific explanations are seemingly temporary, and should be viewed in context with other conflicting explanations. I like multifaceted approaches, and until I hear the IPCC examine other possibilities, I will not support their argument.
I'll volunteer. I studied earth system sciences/Chemistry under several internationally renowned professors at UCI.
I think you're missing the point here. The real argument is whether or not humans can do anything about global warming anymore. We can do things to stall it, but is it worth it, and will it have the disastrous effects we claim it may? No one knows, weather and climate issues are so hard to predict.
But on the flip side, global warming has been occurring and measurable with relations to industrial growth ever since the 1800's. CO2 production, greenhouse gases, these have all been MEASURED and documented. Human beings have caused a measurable addition to greenhouse gases and global warming.
No scientists dispute the fact that the earth is getting warmer. That's something we can prove. Virtually no scientists out there dispute the fact that human beings are adding a small (in the grand scheme of things), but very significant portion of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. If you're disputing that, then you're missing the forest for the trees.
There are people out there that say ARV's handed out to AIDS patients just make them sicker, and vitamins will do just as good of a job. Sure, you can find maybe 1 or 2 skewed studies showing that, but do you really believe it? Same with evolution -- there are "scientific" studies out there that still support creationism, in the biblical sense. Do you believe those?
If you want to argue that human beings can't do anything about global warming, and that the correlation of all our documented emissions has nothing to do with causation, you're standing on firmer ground than the points you've listed, but still will be fighting an uphill battle.
Saying that "it's not proven that human beings have added to global warming" isn't being "anti-liberal media." That stance is "anti-science" and ignoring many facts.
EDIT: Btw, where did you do this research? Could you cite some studies? I don't have access to a good science database anymore, but have some friends that are currently researching related fields in grad school.
Really? "Using a $5 word like "anthropogenic"..." Why bother making a statement here at all? Please learn to use quotation correctly. How much did you pay for all those "big" words that you "used"?
Speaking of changing topic, your point states that Americans believe that the threat of global warming is EXAGGERATED, and they don't believe in DARWIN'S theory of evolution, not that global warming doesn't exist or that evolution isn't valid. I feel it's safe to say that the majority of Americans are ignorant and easy prey to propaganda. And yes, I am an American.
And that is why America is in trouble. Your growing anti-scientific fervour will destroy what was once your greatest asset.
Amazing; but then all Empires fall in the end...
Thank you! My point exactly. This subject does NOT have a "right" answer, but has been politized by people with their own agendas. It is supremely arrogant to think man in a few short years can of his own processes destroy the climate of ages of earth existence. The earth is more robust than that. Think chicken little, the sky is falling! It ain't baby.
Nike? What bothers me is that a company like Nike will claim to care about the environment (good guy?) and yet they make their shoes with near slave labor (I just love Chinese goods that break in two weeks like my Mr. Coffee Espresso maker just did and the Krups one before it; both made in good old China!) while paying famous athletes huge money to promote their sweat shops. No, the whole thing comes across as an easy stance to take to try and make themselves look better in the eyes of people who might see them for the greed mongers they actually are.
Also notice how these companies are not in industries that would be hurt by the carbon trading policies suggested. Yes, it's even easier to care when your business is not affected by it one bit to begin with.
Also notice how these companies are not in industries that would be hurt by the carbon trading policies suggested. Yes, it's even easier to care when your business is not affected by it one bit to begin with.
Can someone clarify which side of the fence Mr. Jobs sits on? Is he saying tht climate change, while real, has nothing to do with human manufacturing and habitat or is he siding with Big Gay Al (Gore) in the new World Order propaganda rubbish that he gets paid big bucks to promote while traveling to speaking engagements in his personal aircraft that emits more in a flight than my cars do in a year. I sent this to sjobs@apple.com a few months ago. Don't know who if anyone read it, but I never received a response:
"To: Steve Jobs
Hello. I own a $3k Macbook Pro that my wife swiped from me nearly a year ago. It's sitting not two feet from my work computer I'm using right now to send this email but I'm forbidden to even touch it and can only gaze upon its brilliant 17" non-glossy screen. So, I'm in the market to buy another Macbook Pro, but I'm really hesitating because I'm so opposed to the member of the board, Al Gore, having any impact whatsoever upon the corporate strategy or direction of product development at Apple. Mr. Gore is a complete fraud, selling his propaganda to the American public for the sole purpose of further enslaving the population with the so-called carbon tax and gaining financially from selling this lie. He is a politician first and foremost, and by definition, a compulsive, maniacal, sociopathic liar selling himself to the highest bidder. Fire him so I can buy my replacement computer. Please. Thank you"...(etc.)
"To: Steve Jobs
Hello. I own a $3k Macbook Pro that my wife swiped from me nearly a year ago. It's sitting not two feet from my work computer I'm using right now to send this email but I'm forbidden to even touch it and can only gaze upon its brilliant 17" non-glossy screen. So, I'm in the market to buy another Macbook Pro, but I'm really hesitating because I'm so opposed to the member of the board, Al Gore, having any impact whatsoever upon the corporate strategy or direction of product development at Apple. Mr. Gore is a complete fraud, selling his propaganda to the American public for the sole purpose of further enslaving the population with the so-called carbon tax and gaining financially from selling this lie. He is a politician first and foremost, and by definition, a compulsive, maniacal, sociopathic liar selling himself to the highest bidder. Fire him so I can buy my replacement computer. Please. Thank you"...(etc.)
I'm personally opposed to Steve Cooke (of Quicken infamy). Clearly for more selfish reasons.
Your first reference is great example of how uncertain the current conclusions really are. Take a look at the 2.20 figure. In the chart they include the aerosol effect as anthropogenic, as they should, but then in the total probability plot they separate them showing that their conclusion in their executive summary
is not actually the total anthropogenic RF but excludes the aerosol effect. I'm sure they have a reason, which is probably due to the 'low understanding' of the aerosol effects, but I am equally sure that it is equally driven by the fact that, if included from their own research, the net effect anthropogenic would be indistinguishable from zero! This one result gives a good example of scientific fads are currently driving research (which is not in and of itself a new phenomena). Why are the effects of C02 so well understood while aerosols are not, by these authors' own descriptions? Could it be because C02 is the hot topic which has had all the funding thrown at it? You should seriously ask yourselves that question. Take the time and actually look at the large, and significant, inconsistencies in the claims and solutions being proposed.
What?! I learned in high school (over 15 years ago) that apes and humans evolved on two separate 'branches', sharing a common ancestor which looked more like a rodent. Maybe our textbooks were from the future?
Agreed! Speaking as a geoscientist of 40 years, I can tell you that there is definitely not a consensus by geoscientists and oceanographers over global warming and man's involvement in climate change.
Part of the issue is a lack of multi-disciplinary approach to the study and a lack of specific peer reviewed research. Climatologists study the physical factors that affect climate but have very limited knowledge of paleo-climates beyond a few thousand years.
Oceanographers and GeoScientists have a much better perspective on paleo-climate and paleo-sealevel fluctuations. Geoscientists typically study worldwide paleo environments of deposition and know the depositional patterns that result from paleo-climate and sealevel changes.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know more about radiating bodies in space and heat loss. They also have a better understanding of solar radiation and how it effects short term climate changes. Currently the sun is undergoing a two year minimum and if the activity levels persist, the earth will actually go into a mini-ice age in the near term. Planetary studies of Mars have in fact shown that the Martian climate has warmed substantially over the past 200 years, not unlike the data on Earth climate change. Such data seems to point to another cause of global warming rather than just man.
Unfortunately the science of climate change and man's impact on climate is much much more complex than any one field of study and expertise.
Personally, I don't worry about it. I just do my part by trying to be a good steward of the planet. I think it is a good thing to try and figure out solutions for cleaner energy and I support those efforts.
Remember that all scientists thought that the sun and planets orbited the Earth? It took a few bold souls who stood against the "scientific consensus" of the day to come to the truth. After 2000 years of belief otherwise.
The moral? Just because a bunch (or even all) of scientists say something doesn't mean it's true.
The moral? Just because a bunch (or even all) of scientists say something doesn't mean it's true.
Actually, the statement "no scientists dispute..." is something we can DISprove:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
I am not a scientist and I do not purport to be qualified to debate the science of the various theories regarding global warming or lack thereof.
I AM qualified to dispute the obviously flawed logic of the incredibly foolish and blatantly false statement that "No scientists dispute the fact that the earth is getting warmer."
As you can see from the provided link, simply by entering the words 'global warming dispute' in Google, within seconds one can find proof that thousands of scientists dispute all or various aspects of global warming theory.
I don't purport to prove that these particular scientists are correct in their claims; maybe they and maybe they aren't. The point is that you falsely claimed there are no scientists who make such arguments. The real truth is that this business of climate theory is extremely complex in all aspects and there is a great deal of vigorous scientific dispute on virtually every point.
Why is it that proponents of global warming theory almost invariably preface their arguments with "all scientist agree.." when it is so obviously true that ALL scientists do NOT agree? As a non-scientist, I am interested in reasonable explanations for the layman of the wide ranging scientific debate and I am willing to respect the credibility of those making rational arguments for or against any point.
In other words, I can imagine being persuaded by rational and reasoned argument. However, logic demands that I dismiss with prejudice all subsequent claims of any party who bases any portion of their argument on the irrational and demonstrably false assertion that "all scientists agree with [my position]". The only accomplishment of such statements is to prove the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the author and thereby discredit all subsequent assertions by same.
If proponents of global warming theory wish to be taken seriously, they MUST begin by acknowledging the FACT that there is legitimate and honest scientific debate regarding this subject. Then each side of the debate can make their arguments and explanations and we the public will weigh the various facts, evidence, opinions, etc. and arrive at our own individual conclusions. Any party who denies the mere existence of opposition to their theories is dismissed from the debate for lack of sufficient credibility and honesty.