Apple jabs Samsung: ‘There are some ideas we want every company to copy’

140 Comments

“As part of its recent environmental campaign, Apple has taken out some tongue-in-cheek full-page print advertising in newspapers around the world today,” Benjamin Mayo reports for 9to5Mac.

“The ad reads ‘There are some things we want every company to copy,'” Mayo reports. “The ad was first spotted by David McClelland on Twitter.”

“The ad is timed alongside Green Earth Day. Apple has adorned Apple Store’s with green leaves as part of its celebrations for the event,” Mayo reports. “It also released a new video ad about Apple’s environmental efforts, narrated by Tim Cook.”

Apple ad as seen on the back page of The Advertiser in Australia
Apple ad as seen on the back page of The Advertiser in Australia

 
Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: The full text of the ad:

There’s one area where we actually encourage others to imitate us. Because when everyone makes the environment a priority, we all benefit. We’d be more than happy to see every data centre fuelled by 100% renewable energy sources. And we eagerly await the day when every product is made without the harmful toxins we have removed from ours.

To be sure we know we can continue to do better. We’ve set some pretty ambitious goals for reducing our impact on climate change, making our products with greener materials and conserving our planet’s limited resources. So the next time we come across a great idea that can help leave the world better than we found it, we look forward to sharing it.

140 Comments

    1. Samsung:
      “That didn’t just happen! Hands over eyes! We can’t SEE YOU Apple!”

      I hope some day Samsung grows up and is appalled at the sheer childish and stupidness of themselves in this current era. Hear no Apple. See no Apple. Speak no Apple. GaGaGooGoo.

      Reply

        1. It’s not that simple. Apple has a remarkable lack of greed compared to the worthless corporations that drove the world into the ongoing economic depression.

          Every era has its characteristics. We’re in what I can only call an era of economic desperation, with very typical desperation bad choices being made. One of those bad choices is the self-destructive rubbish of Milton Friedman and his ilk, that being the ignoring of all corporate responsibility to anyone but the shareholder. That’s a form of suicide.

    4. This makes me wonder, is it Samsung who is copying all of Apples ideas or Apple claming overship of every idea there is? 😀

      Allthough the idea of building a solar panel farm with the panels facing away from the sun may have been one of Apples better ideas lately =)

      Sorry could not resist, goog ad though =)

      Reply

  3. Now I see what Tim Cook has been up to: drinking global warming, er, climate change kool-aid and wasting Apple’s money.

    Global warming has not been proven to exist beyond thousand year variances. It has not been proven how much Carbon dioxide emissions effect the the overall climate compared to the thousands of other factors, and most importantly, if the above facts turn out to be proven, it has not been proven that any change in human behavior will make any difference in tech climate whatsoever.

    The age of the anthropogenic climate change scare will go down as the biggest hoax in history.

    What is certain however is that a very few powerful people stand to make a lot of money off the hoax.

    Reply

    1. Nor has it been proven that the Big Bang event actually occurred, or that the universe is 4.5 billion years old, or that you descended from an ape via processes of natural selection, though I suspect the latter is the most likely.

      Reply

    2. I really can’t get over the naïveté of your last statement. Do you really believe that powerful financial interests are not arrayed against both sides in the debate?

      Reply

        13. Tough call. 90% of Canadians live within 50 miles of the US border and the Klondike is very far away from almost all of us. I did date a woman from Carcross near Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory when she came to the south to go to college.

        15. bot, we Canadians live where we live because of historical and well-established transportation routes, which have driven the location of metropolitan/economic centers. Climate and weather are significantly lesser influencing factors during the typical Canadian’s choice of home, at least during his working years.

          Canadians overwhelmingly also support taking pro-active stances on efficiency & health & cleanliness, which is really what environmentalism is all about. Bot boy seems completely unsatisfied that anyone cares about keeping anyplace tidy. In bot’s little world, one might as well just cancel all recycling services and trash pickup. Too much trouble to pick up after yourself, and it hurts your personal bottom line. Stop sweeping your floors, showering, and washing your dishes too, think of how much more efficient you’ll be with important profit-making if you just go ahead and ignore sanitation.

          Or is it just that you’re too self centered to think about the shared environment, and you truly just care about your own little bubble? Thank goodness some people care about the big picture, because years of snark on MDN from you have made it abundantly clear you haven’t matured enough to have developed any empathy at any level.

        16. uh, Mike, I was joking your fellow countryman, don’t get your mukluks in a wad…incidentally, “efficiency & health & cleanliness” has nothing to do with the lie that is global warming.

        7. Air pollution has many causes and no where in my comment did I say Carbon Dioxide creates smog. What I said was because of the philosophy behind Earth Day, ie the environmental movement, your city does not have smog like you see in China. Was that simple enough to understand?

    5. Here’s what I don’t get about people who don’t buy into Climate Change: we do so much to pollute our planet and strip it for resources that has absolutely nothing to do with “global warming,” and a lot of these policies try to reverse that. Is that so wrong?

      Yes, “global warming”/”global climate change” may be a hoax. I’ve always believed that it’s just cyclical changes. But we DO cause significant harm to the world around us, and our planet’s resources are finite. So why shouldn’t companies invest their resources in ways to limit the damage?

      Reply

      1. Well said. Who would want to be on the wrong side of this debate if, through some action we might take, we might avoid a dystopian future? Oh, I’m sorry, that’s looking beyond our own lifespan.

        Reply

      2. Global warming or client change is not a hoax and if you think it is you need to get off your ass and walk outside.

        In the UK we’ve got insects now living here that are normally found in tropical jungles, we’ve had the worst storms since records began with most of the coast totally flooded. We’ve had winds in excess of 110mph.

        Now you tell me that isn’t global client change due to the human race fucking up this planet.

        Do you know that scientists have now predicted the date when the human race will be extinct unless we change what we are doing to this planet?

        To put it to you ‘gently’ – we’ve got 150 years and it’s already too late for us do turn it around.

        We fucked this planet up and there ain’t any piece of technology that is going to help that!

        Reply

        1. “we’ve got 150 years and it’s already too late…”

          150 years to do what exactly if it is already too late? Sounds like at this point, it doesn’t matter whether anyone believes in the Great Global Hoax. Might as well party and not worry about it.

        4. Again: prove that Global Climate (not client, climate) Change is entirely a manmade phenomenon and not simply the earth going through a cycle of warming and cooling as it’s done throughout its entire existence. You COULD be right. It COULD be something that is entirely manmade, and only an effort from all of humanity could reverse it. You COULD also be wrong. COULD.

          HOWEVER, that does not absolve us of responsibility for caring for this planet. Often, I see the people who oppose the idea of global climate change also opposing most forms of conservation and environmental protection. Even IF Global Climate Change is a fabrication, that does not change the fact that humankind has had an indelible effect on the world around us, often negative in nature.

          All I’m saying is forget the idiocy of debating whether or not it’s “Global Warming” and just do what’s right!

        6. Did your mommy hug you too much and tell you that you’re special, even though she knew you weren’t (well, okay, maybe you’re the OTHER kind of special), all throughout your childhood? Because you always sound like the kind of self-absorbed asshole who thinks everyone should share your high opinion of yourself when, in all honesty, you’re one of the most dimwitted and worthless entities to have ever breathed oxygen.

          I fail to see how saying “Resources are finite. Humans impact the world. Take better care of it.” is sounding like a cheerleader. But you are, in all likelihood, the very kind of shortsighted profit-seeking leeches who’ve put us in the position we’re in, regardless of whether global warming is a leftist hoax.

          Now why don’t you just go crying to mommy because you picked on another kid at school today and he decided to slam your tiny pinhead into a locker instead of let you kick him around. She’ll kiss your booboos and make it all better, and tell you that you’re not responsible for ANY of your actions because you’re SPECIAL.

          Th-th-th-that’s all folks!

      3. Because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Regulating carbon dioxide is as futile as regulating gaseous dihydrogen monoxide. In fact, water has a 4-6 fold greater warming effect.

        I am conservationist and I want the earth preserved for its natural beauty and resources. Don’t misconstrue our position by saying we don’t care about the earth. It is a straw man argument.

        Reply

      4. doc,,
        Good comments. Its funny that the big nay sayers of climate change tend to be the big money people making their money by burning fossil fuels, etc. Of course its in their best interest to ignore all this hoopla. And we all know that smoking does NOT cause lung cancer. More left wing craziness. RIGHT.??

        Maybe if we put enough fresh water into the ocean the ocean currents will stop and England will freeze. But of course, that will never be related to anything we do as humans. Its just natural. Like asbestos does not really cause mesopheoma (sp), that is just a myth.

        OH, and the world trade towers are really still standing. Their destruction is just a myth……. or maybe their original existence is the myth (they were never built – Trump started that rumor LOL) I get those two myths confused.

        Just saying.

        Reply

    6. I agree with you on the Global Warming hoax. Despite all the numbers spewed out by Professors, and all the false data we get from the Governments/UN. The Global temperatures are about the same and have been for 12 plus years.

      BUT – Energy independence is a good thing for Apple and should be for all of us. Too bad we don’t have the billions to toss has

      Just this past winter most power plants across the U.S. were running at peak capacity. Many energy experts said we were just a day or so away from rolling blackouts on the east coast because of the winter demand.

      Obama is having 15 coal power plants shut down first of next year (and 15 every year after that). 75% of these plants were running at peak capacity. You do the math.

      Bottom line…if we have another cold winter like this past, this country is in a energy crisis. All these energy problems are as a result of the Global Warming hoax. Wind mills, solar panels and energy lightbulbs cannot meet these growing needs, not even close. Just look at the cost to Apple and the footprint it took to create its own energy supply.

      Apple is smart and we should all pray for global warming.

      Reply

      1. I agree that energy independence is a worthwhile goal. But when I compare the environmental impact of strip mining for precious earth metals to build solar panels to the energy pulled from the ground with one natural gas well, I think the natural gas well would be more earth friendly.

        Reply

    7. People are gullible. Appealing to emotion works in some 23% of the U.S. population which, not coincidentally, is ” target=”_new” rel=”nofollow”>the exact same percentage of the insane knee-jerker non-thinkers who currently self-identify as “liberal” in the U.S.

      One current example of liberal lunacy: Libs love “alternative energy.” It gets them all hot and bothered. They push subsidies (spending taxpayers’ money) on things like corn biofuel. Oops:

      Corn biofuel causes more ‘global warming’ than gasoline
      Source: Associated Press

      There are literally thousands more examples of liberal lunacy that waste tons of taxpayers’ money on total stupidity that often results in exactly the opposite effect than the bleeding heart libs supposedly intend.

      Just open your eyes, look at things dispassionately, and use your brain for a change, dem/lib/progs.

      Reply

    9. Global warming and our reactions to it can be thought of in terms of a simple 2×2 matrix.

      There are two columns, A and B. The premise that global warming is just part of an unremarkable cycle is assigned to Column A and the premise that global warming is caused by mans actions is assigned to Column B.

      There are two rows, 1 and 2. Row 1 is assigned to the approach that we should do all we can to reduce the increases in Carbon Dioxide emissions that have come about as a result of burning fossil fuels. Row 2 is assigned to the approach that we do nothing.

      So there are four possibilities: Column A Row 1 (A1); Column A Row 2 (A2); Column B Row 1 (B1) and Column B Row 2 (B2).

      A1, a normal climate cycle and we work hard at finding less polluting ways to fuel our world, solar power, wind, etc. The result is different business, perhaps less profitability for the extraction businesses, but great growth in emerging technologies.

      A2, a normal climate cycle and we take no action. The result is business as usual, with great profits in the oil and coal industries due to increasing global demand as emerging economies grow.

      B1, man-made changes that are unusual and we work hard at finding less polluting ways to fuel our world, solar power, wind, etc. The result is different business, perhaps less profitability for the extraction businesses, but great growth in emerging technologies.

      B2, man-made changes that are unusual and we do nothing. The result is crop failure, resource shortages species extinction perhaps including mankind ourselves.

      Here’s the deal: We don’t know which Column we’re in and we don’t get to choose. We can only choose which Row we follow. Would any reasonable person choose the path leading to potential global catastrophe? The worst risk associated with trying to do something is that we develop new technologies that support the development of emerging economies.

      Reply

        2. Good afternoon, princess and congratulations on again pegging-out The Crapometer® with yet another one of your lie-filled, fallacy-riddled horseshit diatribes. The entire Obama speechwriting staff are all standing with their hats over their hearts in immeasurable respect for your “gifts.”

        3. God I wish we could all get in a closed room and duke this out. No side is ever going to change their mind, so let’s just throw fists at one another. Hell might as well be to the death, at least than we could move forward from this argument.

        4. My, what cogent, rational, well documented and argued replies. I have just lost any interest I had for considering your point of view. Diatribes do not make arguments. And, no, I do not intend to await any reply. You are dismissed.

    10. Science has proven that getting kicked in the nuts can lead to short-term breathing loss and a simultaneous inability to remain upright, but I can personally provide evidence if you are incredulous.

      Reply

    12. Well of course if it is, as most scientists agree it is likely to be true, then the only thing that will be going down will be the human race (taking most else with us).
      One thing is sure you had better be right or even the small chance we have of reversing or even living with the changes will have been long lost as it will be far too late before people of your views would ever accept the truth of it.

      Reply

  6. Most efforts at “making the environment a priority” end up wasting money of taxpayers or shareholders. Almost every government “green initiative” such as the light bulb fiasco, ethanol, windmills – create more environmental harm than good. Dead bald eagles are common around windmills. Peer reviewed science now shows corn ethanol is worse than gasoline for the environment. Environmental utopians implement bad ideas to make themselves feel superior but never check the actual results versus the marketplace options they destroyed in the process. That picture in the ad does not look like a “greenspace” to me. And I am pretty sure that some coal or nuclear or real power is required to be built to “back-up” those solar cells on the days when the sun does not shine.

    Reply

    1. You are confused about the reason behind corn ethanol. It is not an environmental action and never has been. It is farm welfare, a way to take consumers money (both tax money through subsidies and cash at the pump) and funnel it to the pockets of farmers. It does not provide new energy source and has always been know to actually take more energy to produce that it adds to the supply.

      The light bulb thing is not a fiasco. Sometimes cheap, inefficient technology just needs to go away. So with the incandescent light bulb. I just wish we could have skipped the compact florescent step and gone straight to LEDs.

      The area occupied by the average American single family home is more than sufficient to produce multiple times the energy required to operate that home. There are available storage solutions to provide energy at times when the sun isn’t shining. What is missing is the will to put it in place at the expense of existing business models. We no longer need centralized energy production and distribution, but the power companies, extraction industries and nuclear power companies don’t want that to happen. Witness the tax in Oklahoma on people with solar installations.

      Reply

        1. It’s the same logic that results in automobile fuel efficiency standards and emissions standards. Left to a free market solution, cheap and dirty always wins because of externalized costs (the oil company doesn’t pay for the health care costs brought on by polluted air, innocent bystanders pay for them). You are free to buy the worst polluting car in the marketplace, just as you are free to buy the most inefficient lightbulb you can find. It just won’t be an incandescent one anymore.

        2. No, I am NOT free to purchase what lightbulb I want..I WANT AN INCANDESCENT ONE… nor the car I want, nor the clothes I want, nor the land I want, nor the education I want…those choices are being mandated by bureaucrats whose insatiable desire to take from those who produce are manifest in the support of chronic liars such as yourself.

      2. Your usual deception (8.5 on the Crapometer®)regarding the Oklahoma law (as yet unsigned by the governor). The tax applies only to those homeowners who are selling excess energy back to the grid:

        “On Monday, S.B. 1456 passed the state House 83-5 after no debate. The measure creates a new class of customers: those who install distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid. While those with systems already installed won’t be affected, the new class of customers will now be charged a monthly fee — a shift that happened quickly and caught many in the state off guard.”

        Reply

        1. Gov Mary Failing will sign the bill. Oklahoma leads again.

          But the real question is why the tax and where did the money behind the campaign to impose it come from? There is no technical reason for the tax. The solar producers were just having their electric bills offset at the same price point they were billed for electricity they used.

          Where did the money to lobby for the tax come from? The Koch Brothers. It’s just a maneuver to make solar power generation less economically attractive.

          It’s is starting to be cheaper to install and once installed, it fixes the homeowners electric rate forever. No more annual rate hikes. In Oct 2013 about 700MW of new electricity came on line. 500MW was solar and it didn’t include individual rooftop installations. It is going to happen. You may want to pay more money to your electric utility every year. Not everyone shares your enthusiasm.

        2. Idiot, if I have a natural gas well on my land and I sell the energy it produces to a utility, I pay tax on it. If I have solar power that produces excess energy I sell back to a utility, I pay tax on that also. A utility is a government-imposed monopoly, it is not at the behest of free-market choice.

          Are you actually saying that this Oklahoma Bill on taxing excess solar energy sold to utilities is being financed by the Koch Brothers? Are you really saying that? If so, perhaps you should join our beloved Canadian colleague and join your local chapter of Delusions Anonymous.

        3. First the legislation. It is based on model legislation produced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC produces reactionary model legislation that enriches the rich and ensures the serfdom of the rest of us. They are funded by the Koch Brothers. My favorite Koch quote “I just want what’s mine. And its all mine.” So that’s a pretty short, fact based path from taxing the sun to the Kochs.

          As far as a tax on natural gas exploration compared to a tax on solar power generation. If you mine and profit from natural gas, the tax compensates for the reduction in the amount of gas available for tomorrow. How much less sunlight will be available tomorrow because we converted some sunlight to electricity today? Hint, it’ll be about the same. No resource reduction, no tax.

        5. furthermore, public utilities are regulated by a government body appointed by the governor and approved by the state congress…in the case of Oklahoma, it is called the Corporation Commission. If you have a problem getting screwed on utility bills, then you need to take it up with government panel that is responsible for its rates, NOT the goddamn Koch Brothers. You’re nutso.

        6. From your passion, I guess you bought into their “rich guys don’t get to express themselves” whine. As in all things, follow the money. Less solar means more fossil fuels extraction, more status quo for the 1%.

          I’m pretty much not going to waste much time trying to fix corruption in government or help the rich find a soul.I don’t know why I see any hope with you. You just like to argue and be nasty to people.

        7. you are simply a reactionary shill, hell-bent on ignoring reality and facts. In order to compensate for your delusion, you distort the truth, create false bogeymen and pathetically try to influence others with outright lies. I just simply call you on it and you have nothing to answer with but more lies. If you persist in posting such horseshit on any forum I read, you can bet I will continue to expose you for what you are: a liar.

        8. …also, please link me to one legitimate site that is a source of the “I just want what’s mine. And its all mine.” quote you attribute to the Koch Brothers. Google, Bing and Yahoo have failed to find it.

        9. It was in the transcript of a trial where they were being prosecuted for theft of oil from wells on Indian lands. They had instructed one of their employees to under-report how much oil he collected, thereby stealing from the Tribes. The employee gave the quote as part of his testimony. They were convicted. They paid a fine. They did pass Jail and went directly to Go.

          Where was that account given? I do not recall. If I come across it, I’ll be sure to share.

        11. You don’t have to name call bot. It’s called an argument, not let’s treat one another like scums of the earth. Just say your piece and be done with it.

      3. Thirdly, you’ve sent the Crapometer® needle off the dial with your outright lie that corn ethanol wasn’t sold to the American people as an environmental “cause,” an efficient, clean alternative to that mean ol’ Arab oil.

        Yeah, those farmers sure got stinkin’ rich off that deal.

        Reply

        1. In fact, I seriously doubt if you were even alive in the mid-seventies when that particular environmental lie (corn ethanol) was being shoved down the public’s throats through endless tax-payer financed “public service advertising.”

          You make me vomit.

        2. Some of us always knew it was a lie from a technical standpoint. If you could get your anger under control you’d probably find a lot more support for your ideas. Less hostility would go a long way. Being in violent agreement is a real challenge sometimes.

  8. There is a difference between pollution and carbon dioxide (a naturally occurring beneficent gas). Both sides of the debate want cleaner air and less toxins in our environment.

    The real debate is over global warming (now changed to climate change to make it harder to refute) and to the extent of human causes.

    Although temperatures have risen this past century, what they have revealed is that past civilizations enjoyed warmer temperatures in a pre-industrialized world. What is also known is that despite the record amounts of C02 that has been pumped into the atmosphere, warming has stalled for almost 15 years.

    What we also know is that all the computer models that scientists used to base predictions on and tried to slam the case closed on the skeptics hands have proven to be inaccurate outside the range of scientific acceptance.

    The problem with global warming proponents is that the science isn’t falsifiable. Meaning, that no matter what data is injected into the study, global warming and climate change must be the result. That is no longer science.

    These are the reasons why there is still a large group of people that aren’t willing to up-end the economy and invest in more gov’t funded losing schemes that really don’t do anything.

    At least when a business makes a big bet on a solar farm or windmills, the economic models will be far more conservative than the trumped up blue sky numbers that politicians quote but never see in real life.

    Reply

  9. We could replace oil, gasoline, natural gas, coal and nuclear power with windmills and solar farms.

    The problem is, we would have no room for food farming.

    We would empty the oceans in a year or two.

    We would then start brewing Soilent Green.

    Reply

  12. If climate change is a hoax, then where does all the millions and millions of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by our technology (not forgetting cow farms and our own breath) go to? Does it wisp away into space? get consumed by all the trees that we haven’t cut down yet? CO2 captures heat, and there is a buttload more of it than previously. Isn’t it possible that the CO2 is hanging around in our atmosphere and hanging onto heat. Most every scientist (and thats above 90%) believes this. But, for some reason you guys hold onto the scientists that are the outliers. The ones who go against the status quo. Maybe cause all throughout history this has happened, where a small percentage of the population is right and the vast majority is wrong. Wouldn’t it be nice to tell the majority…told you climate change was wrong, i listened to the right scientist. Wouldn’t it also suck if the majority was right? and we said “look at what you small minority were able to do, now we have a receding coastline, 20% of the species on the planet went extinct, and the extreme storms, forest fires, droughts are much more common place.”

    Reply

      1. Quantify? scientific study? oh, you actually want me to pull from a scientists study? I could do that, and by all means I should, but wouldn’t anyone who disagrees with global warming just discount it as being some educational elite piece of crap? Several people have brought out statistics in this comment section alone…and it hasn’t changed anyone’s mind yet. so..what does buttload mean to me? buttload is based off experience in my own life of seeing traffic almost everyday..either it be in real life and/or documented in video. I think by that consensus alone, buttload is a justifiable word to use. Is it measured….no. But, just to satisfy you; 154 million metric tons of CO2 is released annually in my state alone, Georgia. (wikipedia was the source) I would say thats a buttload….but compared to the 220 billion tons released by every living thing on the planet, thats minor in comparison…but thats also the planet compared to my state Georgia. Honestly, I find it appalling that people even need to see a study to find out humans are impacting the earth. There are over 7 billion of us in the world. We dig up the soil, we smash living things and turn it into something else, we move faster than 50 mph daily, we fly in the sky. We have almost trekked every mile of land on this planet, unleashed “boatloads!!!” of crap into the ocean and into landfills. But somehow most of the people on this page don’t think we are causing a problem at all.

        Reply

    3. I was unaware that CO2 was a measurement and what is a “buttload?” Is that any relation to a bazillion? With such accurate, scientific terminology to tell us why we should worry, is it any wonder why we can’t give your arguments any weight? Frankly your ignorance is blinding. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere makes up less than 400 parts in every 1,000,000. Think of it this way, if you had a pile of 1,000,000 one dollar bills. . . And intermixed randomly in them were 400 two dollar bills. If you could pick up and look at and check a bill every second, how long would it take you to find every single two dollar bill? About 277 hours and 46 minutes! If those two dollar bills were EVENLY distributed throughout the one million ones, and you STILL had to handle each one, how long would you be picking up one dollar bills before you found your FIRST $2 bill? 41 minutes 40 seconds!

      In actuality, almost every “scientist” does not “believe” this, as this is not a matter for “belief.” Sixteen thousand so-called “scientists” supposedly once signed onto a petition backing the Kyoto protocols, but of those, the vast majority were NOT scientists. They were self-identified and no one has ever really polled a proper vetted list. Several years ago, another poll was done in which other engineers and scientists were queried as to whether they “thought” (not believed” that Anthropogenic (I.e. Caused by humans) the cause of any warming of the climate if there were any warming. Over 32,000 of these people in scientific fields including over 8,000 in climatology indicated doubt or an outright “no!” Consensus has no place in science. Science is not a democracy. One scientist who theory better fits the observed data, trumps a thousand whose consensus thinking is falsified by one datum that does not. THAT is how science works. . . and so far Global Warming (Climate Change, especially Anthropogenic Climate Change) IS not looking good in the falsification arena, considering its utter failure in the prediction department, its failure to account for historical climate in its models, and the temperature increases on extra-Terran planets that cannot have possibly been effected by anthropogenic activity. Add the discovery of deliberate fraud and data manipulation in the evidence the proponents of AGW have used to justify their findings and the outright refusal to release their raw data to other researchers for proper peer-review, the red-flags go up.

      Reply

      1. You can read that statement on it’s face : “Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere makes up less than 400 parts in every 1,000,000” and be like…oh yeah that’s harmless. But then reading the next line off of wikipedia…which i am assuming was your source, explains “Despite its relatively small overall concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth’s surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect”
        in response to the 2nd statement: google searches found

        http://www.policymic.com/articles/78893/a-study-asked-how-many-scientists-don-t-believe-in-global-warming-here-are-the-results

        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

        I also assume your 32,000 people come from this website
        http://www.petitionproject.org/instructions_for_signing_petition.php

        Which i am sure can sit on some kind of merit. Although looks suspicious, as they only ask for American scientists, and I wonder how thorough they dig to make sure the person who sends them in the mail a signed petition is actually someone who has experience in the field.

        But you know what. You convinced me! I am ignorant in my perceptions and what I have read. How was it I ever came to this conclusion that we are causing so many problems for the planet.

        Reply

        1. I don’t use Wikipedia for much of anything that has political ramifications. I am too aware that it can be edited on a whim of either side, and that whim may or may not be accurate. I prefer getting as close to the primary sources as possible.

          As to humanity “causing so many problems for the planet”, it is hubris to think we have that much ability or power. This planet is very resilient. One of the original founders of Greenpeace wrote an article on what a single eruption of a volcano can put into the atmosphere. . . and in three days it exceeds the amount of pollutants mankind has put there since the turn of the 18th Century. Three days! And there have

        2. Cont. . . been dozens of volcanic eruptions in the past century.

          You mentioned that Wikipedia claims that carbon dioxide is a “potent greenhouse gas” and then talks about “radiative forcing” . . . This is based on assumptions about the “greenhouse runaway” seen on Venus, where astronomers assumed they’d find a near Earth like planet and found an environment closer to Mercury than Earth, with molten tin, 900° temperatures, and a 90 bar atmosphere composed of Methane and Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. They ASSUMED that these conditions are due to the CO2. But—and that is a BIG “BUT”—Carl Sagan, Al Gore, and the Global Climate Change Warmists ignore the inconvenient truth that Venus RADIATES more heat than the sun delivers to it. In other words, Venus is NOT hot because of a greenhouse effect! If it were, then perpetual motion would be possible. Venus is intrinsically hot for some other reason than getting solar heat, capturing it, and trapping it. Perhaps the great Venusian forest caught fire due to careless smoking . . . ;^). But it ain’t a greenhouse effect due to Carbon Dioxide.

        3. Seriously? Am I just going to have to keep fact-checking your assertions, and keep pointing out where you are wrong. I mean, why don’t you post where your getting your information; like your statement-“volcanoes put out more in 3 days than humans have done since 18th century.” Instead of going to wiki, just for you, i went straight to the source…a website that deals directly with a volcano, which says all the volcanoes in the world that are active usually produce about 1% of the CO2 emissions compared to burning fossil fuels. And when there is a large eruption..it only brings that percentage up a little more.

          http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

          And your 2nd statement about greenhouse runaway, actually was pretty interesting to look up. At least this one presented a challenge! Steven Goddard and I believe a Jim Hansen have been stating this fact; or at least they say it is a fact. I couldn’t find any other scientist that backs this up though, but after reading their argument it sounded pretty well thought out. Of course, as always when defending the other side I read up on why Steve Goddard would be wrong. Which made sense, Venus underwent the greenhouse effect at a previous stage in it’s life and once it got to a point to where the sun’s rays could not heat it up as well as it’s own internal heat, due to all types of acids and chemicals inside of Venus, it has been feed backing this heat internally ever since. This is a sum of what I read..not a direct quote.
          You had said you like going as close to the primary sources as possible; maybe you should read other people besides Steven Goddard…or whoever is quoting him. in 2008, he had said the ice caps were not melting, which he had to late retract.

    1. The smallest brains are usually teamed with the the biggest mouths not to mention the most active fingers be it keyboards or other more personal activities. I have always thought that in natural selection nature favours lack of intelligence over intelligence… if it can possibly getaway with it. The evidence is certainly abundant here.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , , , ,