The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

That site has no references to anything besides other angry bloggers and op-ed pieces; nothing backed by any kind of peer-review science. Astroturf, IMO.

↓↑report

So really, what you are saying is you've already made up your mind and are unwilling to consider any other opinions on the matter, nor do any research, no approach with an open mind.

Sometimes however, some people need a little bump in the right direction. Here is a study that has been out for a few years that HAS been peer reviewed several times, including a review by AIPG.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf

↓↑report

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

My mistake, this is the study I wanted you to read, but both are really good. This one is just a little more thorough.

Thanks

↓↑report

Ok, the first site you link was registered April of this year and expires April 2010, and is through a hosting company. We'll see if they are still around in a year.

The next link you provided is to a document 12 years old. I'd say that pretty well strikes that one off the list and it focuses on the US temperatures (rather localized - not global trends).

And the final pdf you link is from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I'm having a tough time believing that this document was vetted through scientists that deal with, you know, the earth sciences.

↓↑report

Orian: Typically, the more times you get published, the more likely the study will be reviewed. Scientists are critical thinkers, so probably the point of publishing in the medical journal was to gain exposure and invite comment.

A search on bnet and google shows this study was publish in at least 4 journals, just from the front page results.

↓↑report

@Jon:

Jon: "Scientists are critical thinkers, so probably the point of publishing in the medical journal was to gain exposure and invite comment."

Yes, yes they are,... but explain to me why this is in a journal of "Physicians and Surgeons"? That's like publishing a paper on Gingivitis in the IEEE Spectrum.

Let's take a look at that journal one more time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

From Wiki: "The New York Times described AAPS as an 'ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than a medical group,'"

Now it makes sense why they would put a climate change article in a "medical journal."

Jon: "A search on bnet and google shows this study was publish in at least 4 journals, just from the front page results."

Let me guess, they aren't credible either.

Wiki: "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[29] nor the Web of Science."

↓↑report

Honestly, we can go back and forth about the legitimacy of any study of global warming... To counter your point, did you try searching that journal for the opposite opinion? :) There are studies showing the opposite view. I'm actually surprised you didn't post the links to the study responses on findarticles.

However, I do not wish to detract from my point here: using my prowess of critical thinking, it seems there is no definitive answer and MORE study is needed. Neither side is correct: the liberal side is currently just louder; This is opposite of the bush-clinton-bush era.

My point is: 'we don't know the answer' and the people making changes right now are basing their decisions on arbitrary facts and popular opinion. I posted counterexamples that are quite unpopular, and it has proven to be true in the comment ratings and in the responses. and solve the issues, we will be in a global crisis. Solutions should be engineered, not dictated.

↓↑report

Hey Jon, I've got some equally credible "scientific research" to share with you:
http://www.creationism.org/

Why oh why do the close-minded Darwinists refuse to seriously consider alternative viewpoints such as this?

↓↑report

@Jon: "Honestly, we can go back and forth about the legitimacy of any study of global warming..."

We can, but you're sources have been proven to be unreliable

"To counter your point, did you try searching that journal for the opposite opinion?"

No, and I'm not making any claims pro or con climate change, just that the sources you presented were bunk.

Stop backpedaling, you were pwned.

↓↑report

@Jon,

I was going to engage in this thread until I saw that you actually, and seemingly without second thought, cited an article published by AAPS. So, instead of debate you on climate change, I'm instead going to pass on this piece of advice: In the media world of 2009, you really need to watch your sources. You can find someone who has "published" an article voicing just about any opinion possible, and thereby the forum is worth almost as much as the content. Getting back to the climate change issue, the VAST majority of scientists who seriously study climate change are in consensus about the major causes of the observed phenomena. The fact that there are outliers who disagree is not surprising - there are people who think the world is a cube (www.timecube.com), after all. Science is not the same as political opinion - it's not something in which the majority of folks are just going along with the trends. Scientific theories are built and strengthened by continual experimentation and observation, and when most people conducting this observation are agreeing, it's because they're being critical of the established theories and in the process coming to the same conclusions.

↓↑report

@jollyllama

Well said

↓↑report

Thank you for the delightfully immature personal attacks. Again, the third and final time, I reiterate my point about coming together a solution.

And I'm hardly backpedaling, a previous commenter asked for peer reviewed evidence which I gave him. The credibility of the journal was jumped on... yet the facts were not. I cited several other places where this can be viewed as well as places to find counterpoints.

If you would like to read about non-credible sources and non-scientific methods, how about scandals about article sheet size, sensor data, and cherry picked subjects? http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.2008.erice.pdf. My favorite is this piece: "Global Warming ate my data" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

How about more data on how global C02 cuts will do jack: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40222

Again, my point, decisions by both conservatives and liberals are based on popular opinion and unwillingness to stray from familiar energy sources. Until we come together and leave the emotion out, we will be in a global crisis. You are not helping solve any problem, just dividing the issue even more.

↓↑report

Jon, the first article you linked did say that there was no evidence that increased CO2 in the 20th century has changed the climate significantly, but it also said that there was no way to generalize the data to long-term predictions.

The second article, as others have already pointed out, can't be taken seriously due to its biased source (which, despite its legitimate-sounding name, isn't even indexed by PubMed). If you can't trust a source, you can't trust its "facts."

Finally, FYI, "peer reviewed" does not mean that an article is referenced or "reviewed" after it is published. It refers to the process that a journal uses in approving submitted manuscripts. Multiple fellow researchers anonymously review the submissions (which are themselves anonymous), offer criticisms, and suggest acceptance or rejection. For the very few articles that are accepted into the reputable journals through the process, almost none actually get through without a couple rounds of required revisions.

↓↑report

I'm not entirely sure the logo uses an 'extra' power or lighting, I always assumed the light source was the same as the LED backlighting for the monitor. Changing the brightness of the screen also modifies the brightness of the Apple logo.

↓↑report

That light for the logo that you see is actually just the light from the backlight of the display shining through a semi-transparant piece of plastic. No extra energy is being used to light that logo. In fact, you might say that they are better utilizing the energy associated with lighting the LED display on the laptops since it actually serves two purposes; one aesthetic, and one necessary.

↓↑report

I question the environmental activism of many people, especially the obnoxiously loud ones. Is it concern for our earth or a means to control over capitalism?

↓↑report

I wouldn't be so concerned about the light as I would the fact that they are building all of their electronics with built in, non-user replaceable batteries. If Apple advertised it from the get-go as them trying to control the recycling of batteries, thus sending in the product to get the battery replaced ensured they would recycle the batteries, I would maybe be ok with it - but they didn't do this.

Now when a products battery nears its death instead of just simplying replacing the battery themselves, many people will find it easier, and maybe better, in their mind to just buy a new product instead of going through the hastle of sending it into Apple to get it replaced, and in all actuality getting a refurbished product back not the one they sent in.

This design of using non-replaceable batteries needs to stop.

↓↑report