Apple quits the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over opposition to EPA

Sorry I'm late to this party. None of these denier posters here have the clout or credibility of these statements below. These American science organizations (who actually do the climate science) are just the beginning of official statements of scientists from around the globe. And it doesn't even include private orgs who do the science like Scripps and Stanford.

And NONE of this even approaches human CO2 caused ocean acidification, which is simple science.

----

NASA:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”


NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm

“Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”


AGU (American Geophysical Union)
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

must be nice to dump your green house gases in china.

"So-called "Global Warming" is a political fad, and hardly science. Many, but not all, scientists support "Global Warming" because they receive grant money in an attempt to prove it. People will do anything for money. And if you twist someone's arm enough, he will tell you what you want to hear. "

So essentially there's no such thing as scientific knowledge! All you have to do is pay for it! Sour grapes is one thing, but to kill science in the process. tut tut..

Well there's a rational theory everyone can rally behind. There's a deep seated paranoia in statements like:

"It will NOT change the climate one iota, but it will impoverish many, and set our economy back decades, which I think is THE goal of many on the left."

Doe the US even have a left?

In the end, energy efficiency will save people money. Even producing your own energy will lead to people saving money and help to secure supply. Right now the US is importing oil and exporting currency faster than the 'left' could even hope to destroy US power (if that's their supposed aim, if they even exist of course). As a result the power is moving east all by itself, with the money naturally. Still, that's market forces. And we'd be damn fools to stand in their way eh?

You can cite this source, I can cite that source, ad infinitum. Meanwhile, I have been listening to the Global Warming crowd, who have now renamed themselves the Global Climate Change crowd (wonder why?) for nearly thirty years. Guess what? They are NEVER right. Never. In the eighties they said by 2000 the polar ice caps would be GONE. Temperatures were supposed to skyrocket. Neither has happened. It is clear to anyone with an open mind that data is manipulated (see the famous hockey stick debacle) to produce outcomes favorable to those of a certain political bent. Go back and read some of the articles from the eighties and tell me I'm wrong. It really is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind.

"Global Warming," as presented by Al Gore -- a politician -- is a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is, by definition, unproven. My uncle is a geologist. He says it's all bunk. I trust him. I don't trust politicians, who are, by definition, liars.

Isn't it true that we find the remnants of lush, tropical paradises under deserts, such as the Sahara? The climate has ALWAYS been changing! It didn't begin on Al Gore's watch; it's been going on since the earth was formed, eons ago.

It will continue to change, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Cap and Trade is a power grab and a new tax scheme. It will NOT change the climate one iota, but it will impoverish many, and set our economy back decades, which I think is THE goal of many on the left.

So-called "Global Warming" is a political fad, and hardly science. Many, but not all, scientists support "Global Warming" because they receive grant money in an attempt to prove it. People will do anything for money. And if you twist someone's arm enough, he will tell you what you want to hear. Sweeten the pot with money, and he'll tell you MORE than you want to hear. Why are "scientists" different from others? They will continue to support "GW" until the grant money dries up.

If you give scientists money to prove that pigs can fly, they'll provide evidence and studies indicating that pigs can fly. If you give them MORE money, pigs will run airlines.

Is CO2 bad for humans? Yes. Bad for plants that need CO2 to produce O2 that humans require to breathe? No.

And while I'm here commenting, wouldn't be a bad idea for those who drink the kool-aid and actually believe in "human caused global warming", might want to check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Is global warming real? Sure. Are humans directly responsible for the majority of climate change? I highly doubt it. It's pretty arrogant of a species to think they are solely responsible and to think they have the power to change something that happens naturally. There is so much about the planet we don't know and understand.

Gee, this summer sure was a cool one, don't you think?
Please, question authority and come to your own conclusions.
Oh, and also follow the money. That always leads to interesting places.

How do the reactionaries manage to get their skewed messages on to so many websites/forums so quickly?

To all those who say increased CO2 isn't a bad thing, please take a tube and run it from your muffler through your car window. Now seal the tube in the closed window and start the car, have a seat in the drivers seat with all the windows and doors closed and rev the engine. Let me know how it goes.

Global warming or not, doesn't matter, we are pouring way to much junk into the air, land and water.

China's per capita emissions are still well below both the UK and the US. Likewise it's historical emissions are nothing compared to the the developed nations. Blaming China for emissions that have other been exported from the developed world, mainly on the grounds of cost, isn't much of an argument. In the end, it's about purchasers and the post-modern brands that commission the products in the first place.

Apple uses aluminium in its notebooks and while it is recyclable, the mining and smelting is hugely energy intensive, since it requires such high temperatures. The only renewable aluminium smelter I know of is in Iceland, but even then the bauxite is shipped in, the metal is shipped out and Iceland gets to keep the pollutants going into its water table. Apple says this material is 'green' but really it isn't.

For designers, this is a challenging design problem, but in the end shiny notebooks will sell better than ones whose bodies are made of compressed seed husks bonded together by resin or the number of different materials out there.

PS - On those calling Global Warming a 'hoax' etc. - perhaps your first mistake is to use unscientific terms such as 'hoax'. You've already veered away from the truth value of the theory or whether it is falsifiable, and portrayed yourselves as victims. Science doesn't operate like a political system, either you have evidence and it passes peer review or you don't. Luckily the truth doesn't depend on just one paper or another, as the media would have people imagine.

If Apple was really concerned about the environment it would leave China, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. http://greenhellblog.com/2009/10/05/if-apple-was-really-concerned-about-the-environment/