See previous posts on this thread. No need to repeat yet again the numerous links showing that there is much scientific debate on this subject. Note that I am not claiming those scientists who dispute global warming theory are correct, I am merely pointing out that they exist. That is an indisputable fact. Maybe they are wrong, but that should be determined on the basis of the scientific evidence, not by trying to deny that their opinion exists.
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
See previous posts on this thread. No need to repeat yet again the numerous links showing that there is much scientific debate on this subject. Note that I am not claiming those scientists who dispute global warming theory are correct, I am merely pointing out that they exist. That is an indisputable fact. Maybe they are wrong, but that should be determined on the basis of the scientific evidence, not by trying to deny that their opinion exists.
The wackos persist
Hey, when the sky turns orange and Australia melts, we won't be too hard on the frigtards who let science be overruled by crackpot religion and crude political self-interest.
You expect the Chamber of Commerce to be a business lobby. You don't expect them to be crazy followers of Senator Inhofe and Lyndon Larouche.
Hey, when the sky turns orange and Australia melts, we won't be too hard on the frigtards who let science be overruled by crackpot religion and crude political self-interest.
You expect the Chamber of Commerce to be a business lobby. You don't expect them to be crazy followers of Senator Inhofe and Lyndon Larouche.
probably i shouldn't have posted this graph because everyone seems to just jump on it instead of READING the post. i DIDN'T say it's causing the current temperature change, but that it probably has and will have an influence on global temperature. that's all i said. it's not about the current slight increase but what could happen within some 100 years from now.
- you're absolutely right, that co2-increases in the past lagged ocean temp. increases
- but NOW we have a leapfrog increase of co2 WAY above natural peak levels. are you absolutely sure you can believe the few scientists who say, that this won't have a feedback on temperature? just because in the past, the process was reversed doesn't mean, that it doesn't work the other way around too. let me make an analogy: your whole live you have cooked water by heating it through an electrical or fossil energy source. you know, that after heating it to the boiling point, you shouldnt touch the casserole through which the heat went. now we get into an alien situation: your neighbour - out of some reason - brought you hot water (maybe because your stove is malfunctioning) and pours it into your casserole. after 3min, are you gonna touch the casserole with your bare hands or not?
- your quoted site is very interesting and i actually recommend it to the others here. however, when i look at the co2-graph, seeing the huge increase over the last 150 years, it just seems very IMPROBABLE to me to be a geological / biological process that just happens to be in the same time period we are blowing sh*t out into the air. here's a a link from a global warming CRITIC like you, who made the effort and aggregated the same data i posted above with cited sources and everything: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html. i have NO idea how he got to the conclusion, that we aren't mostly responsible for this (co2-increase).
exactly. and what does this tell us? THAT THE OCEANS AREN'T RESPONSIBLE for the current co2 increase.
i agree 100% with you, that science shouldn't get mixed up with politics. that's why i can't understand how global warming critics mostly use politic arguments to deny scientific fact. if you can post more data and models that show that we are all fine and can go on doing what we do - plz go ahead. i would be GLAD to change my opinion and stop worrying. my hope is though, that you would also sit back for a moment and think about what people post here and what you are posting. just, say, 5min.
people such as gore are the financial backers for SOME of the scientists who would claim the climate is in a crisis. Sure there are plenty of scientists who will willingly admit there might be a problem and have no such connection with the people making millions off this (made up crisis), but there are very few actual scientists who actually believe that without a doubt we humans are destroying our climate and that legislation such as cap and trade is the solution. In fact id be willing to wager almost every actual climate scientist is agast at the idea of cap and trade helping the purposed crisis in any way whatsoever.
All that said. I am not a climate scientist, but my father is a Hydroclimatologist for the US Geological Survey who has been studying this stuff for over 30 years. So ive learend a few things over the years.
In addition to the scientific evidence against the Global Warming theory we have practical evidence of global cooling not warming as opposed to the eco-zealot propaganda being pitched... Here a Colorado ski resort boasts 'earliest opening day in 40 years' and here a Las Vegas ski resort to open 'earlier than it ever has'... In Idaho, the school kids are now enjoying 'earliest snow day in history'... Exactly how much practical evidence is needed to shoot down this global warming fiction?
Which scientists are these?
You're embarrassingly confusing weather and climate. Short-term weather changes do not equal deviation in the long-term warming trend. Which is what defines climate change.
For instance weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina are well known to cause short-term warming and cooling trends.
So where is the climatic evidence for global warming?
Last year China battled the "coldest winter in 100 years" while this year the Northeast part of the "U.S. May Experience Coldest Winter in a Decade". In short, the facts seem to suggest that although the theory of global warming is offered, the practical facts (climate) seem to dispute it. Methinks that you global warming advocates cling to a belief in a long-term warming fiction in the hopes of surviving the current cold reality...
The link I posted above, about China's coldest winter in 100 years, was not caused by El Nino or La Nina or Tia Leonia or anything but Global Cooling... Coldest winter (2008) in one hundred years!!!!!
Practical facts beat out theory...
To understand climate change one of the best places to start would be NASA's climate website or realclimate which has a good jump off point to a number of reputable sites (from Oxford University to the National Academy of Science) that explain the basics. Frankly I'm a bit astonished that you're asking such fundamental questions given that you're quite vociferous in rejecting the science
.Again you are confusing weather and climate. They are different things. Another basic you're missing is that global warming doesn't necessarily mean that the whole earth warms up in every location. It can cool in some as large global ocean or air currents change. Best to give the above websites a read as they explain this all really well with diagrams and animations
.You're absolutely right, unless you're the mainstream media and blame a hot spell during summer on the east coast as proof of global warming...er...climate change
Or the current cooling trend.
Why do we fight so hard to want to keep the Earth's climate the way it is now? Why is every that hurricane or natural disaster blamed on man made global warming when we have had these for centuries. Who says that the Earth being warmer than it is right now is a bad thing? It has definitely been much warmer than it is now in the past and we are still here. This is what I don't understand.
Again you are confusing weather and climate. They are different things. Another basic you're missing is that global warming doesn't necessarily mean that the whole earth warms up in every location. It can cool in some as large global ocean or air currents change. Best to give the above websites a read as they explain this all really well with diagrams and animations
Except when referring to glaciers melting and the polar ice caps. thats always the fault of man made global warming.
Regardless of whether global warming is man-made or not; it is worrying.
I make no claims to be a meteorological or climatological expert; but my understanding is this: the sun's radiated energy warms the Earth; which in turn warms our atmosphere through conduction. Since land and water conduct heat differently and because of convection (warm air expands & rises), this heat causes the atmospheric currents which form our weather patterns (wind, rain, storms, hurricanes etc.)
If there is more heat in the system, those atmospheric currents/patterns have more energy. The result of this isn't just "global warming", but potentially more extreme weather patterns. Or, it might just mean unpredictable change. Places like Ireland & Britain, which have changeable weather now due to being on the 'border' between a large body of water and a large continent; might flip 'permanently' to one or the other if the fronts are moved by these climatological changes.
Hence the reason the term 'global weirding' is often used, rather than global warming.
This is actually quite wrong.
AGW theory has been disproven, and worse it was disproven by the guy who came up with it in the first place. Al Gore heard the theory from a university professor, whose name escapes me at the moment, in the 1970s, and later decided to make a lot of political hay from it. But the profs theory-- that CO2 absorbtion of IR was sufficient to cause a greenhouse effect, was disproven by this very same professor in the 1980s. Yet in the 2000s Al Gore cites him and that theory in "An inconvenient truth".
The absolute fact of the matter is that the entire "climate change" movement is a fraud. IT is a political movement designed to give governments more power and the ability to extract more wealth from their people.
They are doing this using fabricated science and the scandals of dishonest science behind these political papers are legion.
However, this bad science appeals to a certain segment of the population who doesn't really care about science and whose interests are aligned with the politicians.
Anyone who supports the theory of human caused global warming is either uninformed or perpetuating a fraud.
Shame on Apple for apparently endorsing this theory (And shame for having Al Gore-- who knows jack all about technology-- on their board.
Shame on the US Chamber of Commerce for supporting ANY "cap and trade" bill.
Think about this, they are claiming that CO2, a gas produced by all animals on the planet, is a "pollutant" and thus must be regulated. Thus, under their theory, the environment created animals designed to destroy the environment. But this fits well with people who think humans are a scourage and should be wiped out.
And that long term trend is driven by ice ages. You're embarrassingly connecting the warming since the ice age which is thousands of years old with technology changes that have happened in the last 20 years and claiming that those technology changes caused it.
Yet you reject the last 10 years of change as "embarrassing".
But this is what the whole climate change hoax is based on: cherry picking data (or timelines) to produce a desired argument.
The mainstream media isn't science. You'd do well not to learn any science or attribute anything you read in "the media" as science. Always check the primary source.yaddacubed said:
You are partially correct. The long-term cycles consist of ice ages punctuated by periods of warming. I never claimed otherwise. This is what the science shows, which bizarrely you seem to agree with despite going on to dismiss climate science as an outright fraud
.Again you're partially right but I'll refer you to the above links for what actually encompasses climate change. All the current warming is not attributed to "technology changes in the last 20 years". That's a strawman. There's no doubt that the warming is multifactorial including a proportion from natural cycles. What's of concern in the long-term warming trend is that the current rate of acceleration is unprecedented. Nobody is claiming that anthropomorphic climate change is 100%. That's not even a claim made by the IPCC. Science works in probabilities when making future predictions. If you haven't read them already here's a link to the IPCC's reports. They lay out the case for climate change very clearly and a rather conservative in their conclusions.
This is a rather fantastic claim and as such you're going to have to provide some extraordinary data to demonstrate that there is a wholesale hoax of the scientific community across multiple science disciplines. Climate change does not rely on any specific data set. On the contrary the strength of the science results from the corroboration of the science from multiple data sources. If you're going to reject science outright on this matter as fraudulent there's not much discussion to be had.
OK, if you say so, Einstein.
The point is that a great majority of the public and of the AGW hysterics get ALL their info from the MSM, and are proportionately misinformed.
Back at you. You reject the science that refutes anthropogenic cause.
For these people I completely agree their position is somewhat unfounded. However these aren't the arguments I'm refuting or the evidence I presented so I'm at a bit of a loss why you quoted or replied to me....
I haven't refuted science of any kind here have I
? I've just pointed out that claiming wholesale fraud by multiple disciplines of science is an untenable position.
I couldn't read past post #141, that being the most ignorant, brainless, sheepish, lame post up to that point. Look, if you're not awake by now, likely you won't wake up ever. So go back to your chute and don't be surprise when you wake up screaming as the axe falls upon your neck. I only hope someone does me or the rest of us the favor of gagging you before that happens because I hate to hear sheep screaming. It's maddening. But please, don't pollute this forum with your unabashed, partisan, ignorance. It's not as easy as republicans = bad = hate the environment, etc., Dems good, bla, bla, ba-a-a-a... If you're going to be stupid, please: Do it somewhere else. It doesn't add anything of worth to any thread anywhere on the entire internet.
I guess I need to clarify - because just as you belittled the posts of singular instances of early snow and cold as evidence against AGW, the MSM regularly attributes heat spells, snow pack, and hurricane activity (whether heightened or not) to what they now call climate change (global warming is SO '90s).
I haven't refuted science of any kind here have I
You don't seem to understand here either. You and your brethren believe what you do not by conspiracy, but apparently by common goal. Fraud is not claimed, just selective data exploitation. 'Climatechangers' (a term I just now coined, akin to 'Truthers' and 'Birthers') have in aggregate a myriad of so-called scientific 'facts' with which they can demand carbon reductions and the requisite damage to economic freedom. The subject is utterly political, all in some psychotic goal of evening the playing field even though the field that China, Mexico and India play on has no players (née unilateral economic disarmament). Real scientific controversy should be blind to politics - in this case the left feels guilt and thus obligated to change our way of life via force of law.
People, it's simple common sense and it doesn't require a PiledHigher&Deeper (Phd) in Meteorology to understand that animals and you consume oxygen and plants ingest and store CO2, releasing oxygen during their lives through a nifty process called photosynthesis. When animals decay they release gasses including methane and others, when plants decay and/or burn they release all the CO2 they trapped during their lifetime. Furthermore, it's a widely and scientifically repeatable fact that warming induces CO2 release, in that order, not the reverse order that liars like Algore would have you believe, that is, that CO2 causes the warming. Clearly a person with eyes would have to have the ability to see that warming, up to the recent solar minimum, has been affecting all the other bodies in the solar system too, not just Earth, or Terra if you prefer. And it follows that the cooling trend we're in now is occurring on the other planets in the system just as it is occurring on Sol. There is a period in recent history, before Mr. Ford invented the assembly line method of manufacturing, where grapes were grown in England, clearly a much warmer period of history that occurred before the Industrial Revolution. Humans weren't so egotistical then as to say, much less believe, they had something to do with it. Maybe those were better times, before corporations ruled the world.
To say everything we are doing isnt warming this planet up is amazing. All those factories,all those cars, all those computers and none of them produce heat? God help us and scotty beam me up, lets go somewhere with intelligent life.
God help us and scotty beam me up, lets go somewhere with intelligent life.
Again i have really no idea why you quoted me. I pointed out the reasons why it is wrong to attribute a cold winter to climate change when it's the long-term and overall trends that are important. And that reasoning applies for both the MSM (whom I haven't referenced) and posters on this board. I completely agree with what you're saying. An isolated weather pattern is little "proof" of anything.
My common goal in my posts is to explain the science. Nothing more. I haven't delved into politics one iota
. Although you've quoted me a few times now not a single post of yours has referenced anything i've said .Purposefully cherry-picking data to support a conclusion in science is fraud.
You're confusing what I'm presenting as the science with anything political. I haven't made a single reference to politics or economics. You incapacity to extricate the two is the problem here as your posts continue to illustrate.
Real science should strive to be objective. Which is why I'm restricting my arguments to purely science. Something you've been entirely unable to do. If you think climate science is a political conspiracy to level the playing field with other countries that's fine. But if you're going to dispute the science as "selectively cherrypicked" across mutliple disciplines of science be prepared to back up your claims with some evidence. You're assertions, whilst entertaining, hold little worth.
edit: you joined macrumors for this thread
?I think that the responses to each other had lost context after a few iterations.
edit: you joined macrumors for this thread
Actually, I've been a Mac user since using a Lisa at work back in '85, and a regular reader of Macrumors for years. This subject just got me a little riled up, I guess, more that other dumb things Apple has done (like dropping FireWire).
Peace. And again, all I want to know is when the i7 MacBook Pro 17" is going to be available.