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

[miketcool]

I did not know about your reference, good example of omission then.

I found the document pertaining to that study.

Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin

*disclaimer for everyone else*
The above is just an EXAMPLE of what happens when a new and conflicting hypothesis is tested on a subject that already has a majority scientific consensus. I am not stating any religious viewpoints, just providing an example of creative thinking applied to a scientific study.

Thanks for having a thought provoking debate with me gibbz, I highly respect you for it. The linked pdfs are fascinating. I wish you the best of luck on your PhD. What is your dissertation on if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Starflyer]

did you even look at the graph? it says, that in the last 500'000 years, the co2 level, even at its peaks, has NEVER been much higher than 0.03%, while NOW we are close to 0.04%, which is a 30% more. also, the rise in co2 has NEVER been that fast. Note, that the natural peak levels always led to a sudden decrease in temperature. Beyond that level we simply do not know what happens.

So we are at .04%, which Man Made CO2 is only 3% of that. An insanely small amount!

1. do you really think, that the co2-rise since the 19th century is ocean-related? can you explain, how the ocean is suddenly emitting so much more?

1. 
   
   Because its getting hotter due to an increase in solar activity which it has been shown that the greater the amount of solar activity, the hotter the Earth's temperature is.
   
   
   

   what do you suggest then? pumping away the ocean? nuking greenland, so that it releases ice into the water? :S

Whatever we can do to keep the ocean from destroying our planet. :S

 

[fishdoc]

I am curious where you do your geoscience research, only because in my attendance at AGU and ASLO, I have yet to see more than a single paper in any year that has been presented disagreeing with the basic tenets of climate change (trend towards warming overall; human impact significant). If you read Eos (the journal published by the American Geophysical Union), you would see that a recent poll showed 97% agreement among climatologists that humans are impacting global climate change, and that the percentages were lower (but still high) in other geoscience fields (i.e., the ones that do not make climate the main focus of their research). As I recall, meteorologists were lower (high 60's?), but then it makes sense that if you study very short-term changes you might not be as clear on long term changes, and unsurprisingly petroleum geologists were just under 50% (please check my recollection, as it was a while ago I read that issue).

I would also argue that oceanographers as a group do not have a great handle on paleoclimates (speaking as one myself), but rather that is the purview of paleo-oceanography.

I would also point out that the whole "mars is warming" thing is actually a misrepresentation (intentional or unintentional) of the research. The temperature change on mars (evidenced by melting ice cap) is thought to be regional, not global, and in fact the average temperature on mars is thought to be decreasing, not warming (read the pair of papers in Nature in 2005 on the topic for further info).

Finally, I find it ironic that critics of global warming are so quick to jump on melting icecaps on mars as proof of martian global warming, but are dismissive of melting icecaps on earth meaning the same thing (I recognize you did not make this argument yourself, it is just a source of frustration whenever I teach courses).

I will say, though, that the attitude of just doing your part to be a good steward of the earth is a good one, and in some ways makes it irrelevant if you believe in climate change or not!

fish

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.

 

[DeepDuh]

So we are at .04%, which Man Made CO2 is only 3% of that. An insanely small amount!

where did you get those 3% from? quote plz. They don't make sense at all.

as atzeX already said: plz watch this:

„Get rich and save the world - or else“:
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/...1?i=2120396435

 

[yaddacubed]

AGW Hysteria

So someone posts a low resolution graph spanning 450k years and says that CO2 causes the apparently requisite temperature change... except that you cannot judge cause and effect from the chart. The temperature of what? Atmosphere? Ocean? Straight from the Al Gore's fictional film. Actual analysis shows that CO2 LAGS, not leads, aggregate temp. Hmmm.... So much for that causality. Besides, the oceans have been cooling since 2003, which actually increases carbon sinking.

I'm going to barf if anyone else regurgitates the mantra of "90%" or "consensus of scientists agree" with global warming... blah blah blah. Made up numbers - there is no consensus. Science does not require consensus, because it is absolute. The only thing absolute on this topic is the desire for the left to unilaterally destroy our capitalist system with absolute idiocy.

 

[atzeX]

The only thing absolute on this topic is the desire for the left to unilaterally destroy our capitalist system with absolute idiocy.

You will do that yourself. Your Bankers almost did


@DeepDuh: you have to copy the whole link:
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/ciw-public.1785448941?i=2120396435

Edit: most of you seem to ignore the economic possibilities. A nice quote (off my head) from the video:

Some hundreds years ago in London they used to throw their garbage on the street. We invented the sewer. That is a big economic factor now. Would you want to go back?

 

[MrGouda]

Personally, I'm not sure who to believe with this climate change issue. But what I DO know is that they can't even accurately predict what the weather will be like next weekend let alone what the climate will be like in 50 years! Get back to me when you get the weekly 7 day forecast right, then you can talk to me about 50 years later.

 

[yaddacubed]

Off topic:

You will do that yourself. Your Bankers almost did

My bankers? These guys weren't my bankers. Also how 'bout your friends Reno, Frank, Dodd, and Mozillo?

Supporters of Cap and Trade type schemes are ignorant of basic economics - domestic industry that can move offshore will do so and sell their 'credits' to those that cannot (energy), which will pass those costs on and your utility bill will increase by this amount.

Back on topic:
The U.S. CoC appears to be on the AGW worshipping big-business decrying side anyway, supporting anti-business candidates.

I just want to know when the i7 MacBook Pro 17" is available.

 

[ItsGavinC]

durrrr i has pictures therefore science and stuff

ROFL. Funniest post all day.

Yeah, I took a photo of my front yard in winter and then in summer. The SNOW was GONE I tell you! GONE!

 

[fishdoc]

Read the actual primary literature (not some website - real studies and polls of scientists, that explain their methodology, study population, etc). Then come back and present your argument about the topic.

Sites like "climatechangefraud" seem to have a bit of bias, don't you think? If you wonder about a scientific question, ask scientists.

So someone posts a low resolution graph spanning 450k years and says that CO2 causes the apparently requisite temperature change... except that you cannot judge cause and effect from the chart. The temperature of what? Atmosphere? Ocean? Straight from the Al Gore's fictional film. Actual analysis shows that CO2 LAGS, not leads, aggregate temp. Hmmm.... So much for that causality. Besides, the oceans have been cooling since 2003, which actually increases carbon sinking.

I'm going to barf if anyone else regurgitates the mantra of "90%" or "consensus of scientists agree" with global warming... blah blah blah. Made up numbers - there is no consensus. Science does not require consensus, because it is absolute. The only thing absolute on this topic is the desire for the left to unilaterally destroy our capitalist system with absolute idiocy.

 

[twoodcc]

well maybe they will learn eventually if enough people resign

 

[TMay]

Off topic:



My bankers? These guys weren't my bankers. Also how 'bout your friends Reno, Frank, Dodd, and Mozillo?

Supporters of Cap and Trade type schemes are ignorant of basic economics - domestic industry that can move offshore will do so and sell their 'credits' to those that cannot (energy), which will pass those costs on and your utility bill will increase by this amount.

Back on topic:
The U.S. CoC appears to be on the AGW worshipping big-business decrying side anyway, supporting anti-business candidates.

I just want to know when the i7 MacBook Pro 17" is available.

Basic business acumen in America: Socialize the risk, privatize the profit. Think Love Canal.

 

[MacDSmith2]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you believed in creationism as well, ...

Actually, I do. And I have a master's degree in mathematical physics and I still think the political uproar over Climate Change as being generated by Man is complete nonsense designed to produce mass hysteria to feed a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.

 

[brendu]

I might refer you to the hole in the ozone.

Where is that hole? I never can find it, and im always wondering why the vaccum of space is not sucking all of our air out of it?

 

[TMay]

Actually, I do. And I have a master's degree in mathematical physics and I still think the political uproar over Climate Change as being generated by Man is complete nonsense designed to produce mass hysteria to feed a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.

So, are you a biblically literal creationist, or are you a Supreme Being created the universe and the physical laws that govern it creationist?

Just curious.

 

[BobD2]

Lots of heat here. 188 posts so far (as I write this). Limited amounts of light, unfortunately. Some of the respondents have cited some interesting sites with useful information. I thought I would mention a few more that I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread:
http://climate.nasa.gov/ -- Lots of useful information here, including evidence, causes, effects, uncertainties, etc. Well organized and easy to digest, with references.

http://www.realclimate.org/ -- A site run by climate scientists in order to provide information regarding current climate science. Interesting articles and discussions. If you want to engage in intellectual combat with climate scientists about whatever you believe on the subject, here is your site. More challenging site for such debate than a Mac site.

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths -- An interesting site that examines some of the myths and legends that have arisen over the years regarding climate science and climate change. Many of these myths have been repeated here.

My thoughts -- I'm not a climate scientist, just an interested and concerned observer -- if the many scientists around the world who have been devoting their careers to the study of this for the last several decades are right, and we do nothing about it, we are in deep trouble.

 

[X38]

This thread is proof of how far behind the citizens of the US are compared to the majority of the rest of the world in basic scientific understanding. I'd place a wager that more of them get their scientific knowledge from Rush Limbaugh then someone like Stephen Hawking.

Actually, IF you consider this thread to be a representative sampling of American public perceptions as compared to the rest of the world (as you suggest), then it would be proof of the superior discernment of the American public. By your logic.

 

[Starflyer]

Lots of heat here. 188 posts so far (as I write this). Limited amounts of light, unfortunately. Some of the respondents have cited some interesting sites with useful information. I thought I would mention a few more that I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread:
http://climate.nasa.gov/ -- Lots of useful information here, including evidence, causes, effects, uncertainties, etc. Well organized and easy to digest, with references.

http://www.realclimate.org/ -- A site run by climate scientists in order to provide information regarding current climate science. Interesting articles and discussions. If you want to engage in intellectual combat with climate scientists about whatever you believe on the subject, here is your site. More challenging site for such debate than a Mac site.

http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths -- An interesting site that examines some of the myths and legends that have arisen over the years regarding climate science and climate change. Many of these myths have been repeated here.

My thoughts -- I'm not a climate scientist, just an interested and concerned observer -- if the many scientists around the world who have been devoting their careers to the study of this for the last several decades are right, and we do nothing about it, we are in deep trouble.

Yup, and if these guys want to continue to receive their grant money they will support the agenda.

 

[brendu]

I think thats known as the "American Way". This country has no foresight and its truly pathetic.

As for those claiming climate change to be a hoax, what a MASSIVE conspiracy eh? Seems like its the only thing the entire world (besides us of course) agrees on....

no. they dont. europe is not the rest of the world.

 

[.Andy]

Yup, and if these guys want to continue to receive their grant money they will support the agenda.

What's the agenda?

 

[brendu]

What's the agenda?

Pushing green technologies that put money in the pockets of men such as good old al.

Not that there is anything wrong with greener technologies, I fully support them, but we need to be realistic about it. Wind and solar will never replace coal and oil, they cant. It is impossible. And I am not willing to pay more for my energy needs just to be a little bit cleaner. We need a revolution in energy production (fusion) and until that happens, we NEED coal and oil.

 

[.Andy]

Pushing green technologies that put money in the pockets of men such as good old al.

How did gore convince the scientists to sign up for this?

 

[X38]

as some righties on here want to promote. Over 90% of the scientifi community knows global warming to be a fact, and the main culprit being CO2 emissions... this isn't a "cycle" and it isn't a "myth". Get your heads out of the sand and turn fox news off. You are an embarrassment to even repeat that nonsense.

The debate is over... now go tell your right wing propagandists to get get out of our way, so we can do something about it.

Who would you listen to? The global scientific community, or a handful of paid sock=puppets for big oil/Fox News? If you chose the latter, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you believed in creationism as well, or that Obama was a Machurian candidate...

You, like so many other posters on this thread, are demonstrating just why so much of the public does not take proponents of global warming theory seriously.

Don't you get it? Just shut up with the "all scientists agree..." and "the debate is over..." nonsense. The debate is NOT over. This is a complex issue of science about which there is a great deal of valid scientific dispute. If you want to be taken seriously, then present a reasoned scientific argument about the facts.

Instead, you are just acting like a child who tries to win arguments by shouting louder than your opponents. All that you achieve is to convince people like me that it is you who are the misguided fool and your opponents who have truth on their side.

 

[.Andy]

Don't you get it? Just shut up with the "all scientists agree..." and "the debate is over..." nonsense. The debate is NOT over. This is a complex issue of science about which there is a great deal of valid scientific dispute. If you want to be taken seriously, then present a reasoned scientific argument about the facts.

Just wanted to point out the irony of you condemning someone (quite rightly) for using the "consensus argument" as evidence, when you're using the "great deal of dispute" argument which is in essence the same thing.

 

[X38]

I think thats known as the "American Way". This country has no foresight and its truly pathetic.

As for those claiming climate change to be a hoax, what a MASSIVE conspiracy eh? Seems like its the only thing the entire world (besides us of course) agrees on....

If you despise your neighbors so much for daring to have the freedom not to conform to YOUR orthodoxy, then why don't you exercise your freedom to move somewhere else?