03-09-2014 04:01 PM
175 ... 34567
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Then it's not the right solution.

    Apparently the concept of finding a solution to seemingly insurmountable problems is hard to understand. The problem is difficult, that just makes the solution more difficult to find. Not impossible. Geez.
    I don't disagree, but right now the EPA and CARB are so wrapped up in emission controls that that is exactly what's happening. Or "green" regulations that are preventing efficiency improvements.

    Years ago when this whole movement started, there was a story out about power plants that wanted to upgrade the stream turbines to a newer, more efficient model. They didn't currently meet all EPA requirements, but were grandfathered in to only meet the rules in place at the time of construction. Due to rules requiring the entire plant to become compliant with current rules if any upgrades were done, those plants were essentially forced to keep the more polluting turbines. Upgrading everything was prohibitively expensive.
    03-06-2014 06:18 PM
  2. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I think the people advocating these Climate Change practices are also politically motivated. I do not consider them unbiased.
    Funny how you only focus on the things I say that you can attack from a political angle, and ignore the other stuff.

    I also asked why we shouldn't do anything about carbon emissions even though there are environmental impacts separate from any link to possible climate change. Is that a problem because it could be viewed as trying to do something about climate change and you don't want it to look like that?

    I guess what I'm asking is if it's a perception problem.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 06:29 PM
  3. Farish's Avatar
    You know I really had no idea so many scientists were posting in this thread.
    By the way this whole Apple thing to open up this topic.

    I will just leave this right here.


    At Google, we're striving to power our company with 100% renewable energy
    One more thing. If you have a huge warehouse with thousands of servers, why not take advantage of the roof and install solar panels to reduce costs. if you don't believe that is the case, one more quote from Google.

    In other words, we are confident that the technology will deliver a return on investment (ROI) in a reasonable period of time. For example, the 1.7 MW solar installation we implemented in 2007 produces over 3,000,000 kWh of clean energy per year, saving us a great deal in energy costs and reducing our carbon footprint.
    msndrstood and Aquila like this.
    03-06-2014 08:26 PM
  4. toober's Avatar
    I don't mind talking about and exploring more sustainable energy sources but it chaps my tail to be preached at about it by people whose carbon footprints are larger than some small towns. Please tell me how people like Al Gore can preach to me about anything when he shows up to his speech with a fleet of SUVs coming from his private jet. I know he buys "carbon offsets", whatever that is supposed to be, but it sounds more to me like giving Michael Jackson a pass for touching young boys because of all the good things he did for children.
    03-06-2014 08:40 PM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    Damn you guys, it's "AFFECTING" not "EFFECTING"!!!!
    03-06-2014 09:35 PM
  6. Farish's Avatar
    Damn you guys, it's "AFFECTING" not "EFFECTING"!!!!
    I was affected by this post.

    This post was effective.
    03-06-2014 09:56 PM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    I was affected by this post.

    This post was effective.
    Effective immediately, I am affecting your effectiveness...
    03-06-2014 09:58 PM
  8. Farish's Avatar
    Effective immediately, I am affecting your effectiveness...
    Zombies can make you infected.
    03-06-2014 09:59 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    Zombies can make you infected.

    Their infection is neutralized if you have affectionationisms with them....accept when they don't except your effectionisms.....
    03-06-2014 10:01 PM
  10. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Climate is weather over a period of time. If someone gets paid to study something, yes, they will say it exists. Has anyone stopped and asked what if the weather, or climate, over the last 500 years may average a little hotter/colder just like 10 years ago was different than this year? It's just a way for someone else to make money. Clean air and water is important, but the epa is getting ridiculous with things.

    Btw, did the cars and factories cause the 1st ice age? Climate does change but there is no proof that it's manmade.

    Take the new light bulbs. None are made in the usa. They contain mercury. How is that better? Its not. The lobbyists from ge wins a monopoly by fear.

    If someone wants to be eco friendly by all means do so but keep it to yourself. Dont impose a law on everyone else because you feel a certain way.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-07-2014 12:15 AM
  11. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    You know I really had no idea so many scientists were posting in this thread.
    By the way this whole Apple thing to open up this topic.
    I had no idea there we re this many phone engineers, marketing majors, and political geniuses either.

    This was a post you posted in "htc is crumbling from within"

    If they were in really big trouble, they would not have double the production run of the HTC One. People tend to forget how much money these phones generate. If HTC sold two million One units, they are still grossing over a billion dollars in revenue off that phone alone.
    So, given your logic, If you aren't a board member of htc then why did you post this?


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    GadgetGator likes this.
    03-07-2014 12:32 AM
  12. JHBThree's Avatar
    This is something I had not yet thought of.

    Regardless of what anyone believes, or what science says, or even what is absolutely factual, climate change is being used politically to accomplish the wealth redistribution agenda subliminally. It is a quite brilliant plan actually.


    On Tim Cook's comments:
    He should have been much more tactful in his words. He could have implied the same emphasis without quite frankly insulting share holders. He is more or less insulting his boss by say those things. Investing in a sustainable future for the company or ensuring a positive company image are both perfectly viable reasons for funding nonprofit able projects. "Saving the planet" or any other feel good hippy talk is not. Not when you are talking to investors. The feeling I get from the quotes is he leaned too heavily towards hippy talk.
    Why should he be tactful when he's dealing with an Ideologue that cares more about making a scene than anything else? Look up this guys history. He has done the exact same thing for at least one other company. His organization buys enough shares to be able to attend the shareholders meeting, and puts this exact same document up to be voted on, regardless of the company. His only interest is being given a forum for his ridiculous viewpoint.

    The tech industry is one of the biggest users of toxic chemicals and metals, and produces much of the world's toxic emissions. That the leadership of one of the largest tech companies understands that (your so called 'hippy talk') is a huge deal, as is the fact they're trying to do something about it. Regardless of if you believe in climate change, you as a human being should care deeply about what you, or the industry that produces the device you're reading this on, does to the planet. Its a separate issue from climate change, and has more to do with being a good steward of the resources that you use that can never be replaced when they run out.

    Frankly, Tim Cook's response was more tactful than what this guy would have received elsewhere, and more tactful than what he deserved. Telling shareholders to get out of the stock if all they care about is money isn't insulting, it's pretty common sense considering the industry.


    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 12:44 AM
  13. JHBThree's Avatar
    Dude because Apple SAYS they want to bring jobs back, you believe them? . Open your eyes!! It's not happening that way at all. While Apple is not a political entity.. They are a huge company with big influence. . How about instead of talking about global warming, we focus on the deficit, immigration, JOBS. I'm not someone who thinks environmental issues don't matter but this is ridiculous. We have a president that doesn't now how to govern or lead. That's the real issue.


    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    The permits for the foxconn factories in the us for apple products would beg to differ...

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 12:45 AM
  14. JHBThree's Avatar
    I won't bother to post links to several articles on how apple sends at least a million jobs overseas. These jobs are to people who work in some cases very bad conditions. Obviously to pay them cheap is the whole point. 2000 jobs and 1 million dollars is absurd to compare to the number of jobs in China and to a multi billion dollar company. I'm sure the CEO is a big Obama supporter and they usually like to talk about corporate greed. Hypocrisy at its finest. You won't be seeing Apple on "undercover bosses" any time soon.

    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    You seem to not understand how this industry works. Apple doesn't employee any of its manufacturing. It builds nothing.

    Apple contracts out with manufacturers to do it for them. It so happens that because of the location of raw materials, the availability of property, wages, and a whole host of other factors, that China is the most cost effective place to manufacture their products.

    Oh and, in case you didn't realize, nearly every manufacturer on the planet builds their electronics overseas. That includes Motorola (if you didn't buy a customized moto x, it may have been built in China, for example) Google, and every other major consumer electronics company. You can't blame apple for having to use the labor where the labor and facilities are concentrated. You CAN blame the industry as a whole for not doing enough about it.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 12:50 AM
  15. JHBThree's Avatar
    The climate has changed radically in the past without human intervention.

    Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    It has. But the frequency and severity of the change has intensified as humans industrialized. That such changes happened in the past doesn't prove that humans aren't causing it, it just means we don't know the extent to which human activity has made it worse.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    GadgetGator likes this.
    03-07-2014 12:52 AM
  16. JHBThree's Avatar
    Climate is weather over a period of time. If someone gets paid to study something, yes, they will say it exists. Has anyone stopped and asked what if the weather, or climate, over the last 500 years may average a little hotter/colder just like 10 years ago was different than this year? It's just a way for someone else to make money. Clean air and water is important, but the epa is getting ridiculous with things.

    Btw, did the cars and factories cause the 1st ice age? Climate does change but there is no proof that it's manmade.

    Take the new light bulbs. None are made in the usa. They contain mercury. How is that better? Its not. The lobbyists from ge wins a monopoly by fear.

    If someone wants to be eco friendly by all means do so but keep it to yourself. Dont impose a law on everyone else because you feel a certain way.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    CFLs last significantly longer (less waste because you replace them more infrequently) and use less energy.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 01:00 AM
  17. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    CFLs last significantly longer (less waste because you replace them more infrequently) and use less energy.

    Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk
    Here are the epa instructions for cleaning up a broken bulb taken from their website. No, its not better for the environment.

    Before Cleanup
    Have people and pets leave the room.Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. *Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one. Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb with paper or cardboard;sticky tape;damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); anda glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.
    During CleanupDO*NOT*VACUUM.* Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.* Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.* Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard.* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.*Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.* See thedetailed cleanup instructions*for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.
    After CleanupPromptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of.* Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.*Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

    If you have further questions, please call your local poison control center at 1-800-222-1222.


    Why is it important to clean up a broken CFL properly?

    CFLs and other fluorescent light bulbs contain a small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. When a fluorescent bulb breaks in your home, some of this mercury is released as mercury vapor. To minimize exposure to mercury vapor, EPA recommends that residents follow the cleanup and disposal steps described on this page.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-07-2014 01:16 AM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Just to feed off on the disposal issue, I've started seeing special fluorescent lighting disposal boxes in businesses for their lighting. It's a cardboard box specially taped when full to prevent fragments from falling out. That is then placed inside a special mercury vapor lock bag. Those are then set inside another cardboard box and specifically taped to prevent fragments falling out. Once sealed, they are sent off for specific disposal.

    And years ago before it was such a huge deal, we had to get a fluorescent light fixture at work replaced that had been damaged and broken one or two of those long fluorescent tubes. After the contractor fixed it, I asked if they were going to take the broken bulbs. He told me flat out that they couldn't legally take or dispose of them as a business due to EPA regulations and his company's lack of having the proper controls in place to handle broken fluorescent tubes. His advice was to throw them in our compactor and hope for the best. Thankfully the fixture was in an open garage, so any vapor would have dissipated quickly.
    03-07-2014 02:33 AM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Who has made that claim? The fact that humans have influenced the environment does not = statistically relevant. If I add a shot glass of water to my bathtub, I have affected the amount of water in the tub. But not to a relevant degree.

    No one is making the claim that human impact on the climate is absolutely zero.
    Maybe not here, but there are people in the world who think that. Including some people of influence or control.

    No one has answered it because it is not a serious question, because it is completely open ended. If there were 1 quadrillion people on the planet, yes, climate would be affected.
    It's a very serious question and you pulled the quadrillion number from where the sun don't shine. Why is a quadrillion a problem, but 7 billion is not? You're just making things up as you go here.

    1) The changes you want will have economic consequences.

    2) The changes you want will be inconvenient.

    3) The changes you want may actually make the real problem worse if the real problem turns out not to be what you think it is.

    There are more variables involved than you may have considered.
    And there are more things then you have considered. The economic consequences? Tell me, how much economic consequences on a world wide basis are there when people have heath care expenses related to pollution? Those same pollution/health risk are awfully inconvenient for the people that have them too. But no matter, right? As long as the richer people in the world have their conveniences. that is all that matters, right??? Heaven forbid people should be inconvenienced for a less polluted world!! I really wonder about people's priorities if that is what is valued over the well being of the only home we have.

    Lots of people also think we are at great risk for an asteroid impact...should all nations be devoting their resources to protecting from that instead?
    Actually....yes, I do think that a large number of people on the planet should be focused on the defense of said planet. As I mentioned above, it's the only home we have. If we aren't going to maintain it well, and aren't going to guard against harm coming to us, then I guess we are too dumb a species to survive. Darwin at work. But I think it would be rather ridiculous to be the first species on this planet to be able to actually do something about a threat like that, and then make little effort to do so. Don't you? I picture a situation where we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to deal with the danger from above. We really should be putting more effort and resources into getting off this planet. We are strip mining it's resources that will run out, we are filling up space that will run out, and while far in the future the sun won't last forever either. And then there's the asteroid threat which could come at literally any time. So it's imperative we get working on this far more aggressively then we have been. The geopolitical destabilization that will come with those lack of resources will quite possibly overwhelm and consume us with all sorts of wars and conflict. Therefore, we must work on these things NOW. Immediately. Because this effort will take a great many years to accomplish. Once we start running out of things, it will be too late. We won't have enough time.

    I, and other "climate deniers" (LOL) are not advocating that we ignore the issue. We are saying the evidence is not conclusive enough to convince us that such drastic measures are really necessary. We are advocating "wait and see".
    Wait and see......for what exactly??? The studies we have now are discarded as irrelevant. The storm data we have is discarded as merely normal variations. And even though most scientist agree there is a manmade problem, because not everyone agrees people toss that out too (even though there is no other situation that I can think of that requires 100% scientific consensus before people accept it.) So knowing all those things.....what exactly are you waiting for? What's going to change your mind here?
    03-07-2014 05:17 AM
  20. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    ...in your opinion. Which is what it all comes down to. There is no objective measure of the risks. But people who are advocating these changes for the sake of climate change keep acting as if their opinions are objective fact. Like atomic masses or the speed of light...they are not. They are opinions.


    The fact that YOU think a solution is urgently needed is not evidence that a solution is urgently needed.

    I, and other "climate deniers" (LOL) are not advocating that we ignore the issue. We are saying the evidence is not conclusive enough to convince us that such drastic measures are really necessary. We are advocating "wait and see".
    I agree. People don't take into account the economic hit when people push theory as fact.

    Many people hate refineries, but if refineries were to shut down who would it hurt? The hundreds of thousands of employees and the communities. I've heard women complain that their kids are sick all of the time living close to the refineries. I know alot of parents who live no where near factories/ refineries and their little virus magnets are sick all of the time. But, she doesn't care and wants all refineries to go away. Why? They're the big bad boogeymen. Ok, that happens and then you hurt everyone. Something like 60% of houshold items are made from petroleum.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-07-2014 08:17 AM
  21. JeffDenver's Avatar
    Funny how you only focus on the things I say that you can attack from a political angle, and ignore the other stuff.
    You ignore the political angle. You act as if the positions you support have no political angle.

    How much pollution from emissions is too much? Not everyone agrees. We could just outlaw all cars and reduce it to zero, right? So why don't we do that? Because there are economic and convenience consequences that most people (even you probably) are unwilling to pay. People who support these issues do not really consider the opposition as being equal. They see themselves as teacher and everyone else as obstinate students who need to be brought into line.

    I also asked why we shouldn't do anything about carbon emissions
    This is a good example. When did I say we should do nothing about carbon emissions?

    I guess what I'm asking is if it's a perception problem.
    But you do not even consider the possibility that it could apply to you as well. It is always the other side that has the perception problem.

    The "debate" is disingenuous. That is why no productive dialogue can occur. I have no problem at all continuing research. Current research (that I have seen) has not convinced me that drastic measures are needed.
    03-07-2014 09:12 AM
  22. JeffDenver's Avatar
    It's a very serious question and you pulled the quadrillion number from where the sun don't shine. Why is a quadrillion a problem, but 7 billion is not? You're just making things up as you go here.
    Fine...I will ask you the same question; how few people is enough? How low does our population need to be to be permanently self sustaining?

    See? I can ask open ended questions too.

    The economic consequences? Tell me, how much economic consequences on a world wide basis are there when people have heath care expenses related to pollution?
    It is subjective. Not everyone agrees. We could reduce industrialization to zero and remove the health consequences entirely...would you support doing that? If not, why?

    Me: Lots of people also think we are at great risk for an asteroid impact...should all nations be devoting their resources to protecting from that instead?
    Actually....yes
    So you are saying we should shift all resources currently devoted to stopping pollution and instead use them to avoid asteroid impact?
    03-07-2014 09:18 AM
  23. JeffDenver's Avatar
    It has. But the frequency and severity of the change has intensified as humans industrialized. That such changes happened in the past doesn't prove that humans aren't causing it, it just means we don't know the extent to which human activity has made it worse.
    Exactly.

    The people promoting drastic changes are assuming humans are the primary cause, when we do not really know that. They want us to take drastic actions based on information we are not certain of yet.
    03-07-2014 09:20 AM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    You ignore the political angle. You act as if the positions you support have no political angle.

    How much pollution from emissions is too much? Not everyone agrees. We could just outlaw all cars and reduce it to zero, right? So why don't we do that? Because there are economic and convenience consequences that most people (even you probably) are unwilling to pay. People who support these issues do not really consider the opposition as being equal. They see themselves as teacher and everyone else as obstinate students who need to be brought into line.


    This is a good example. When did I say we should do nothing about carbon emissions?


    But you do not even consider the possibility that it could apply to you as well. It is always the other side that has the perception problem.

    The "debate" is disingenuous. That is why no productive dialogue can occur. I have no problem at all continuing research. Current research (that I have seen) has not convinced me that drastic measures are needed.
    Exactly what position do I support? That we should do something about carbon emissions (and maybe other stuff)? Yes. Have I said what that should be? Nope. I haven't proposed a single idea, but yet here you are arguing against doing anything about it at all because you aren't happy with the current state of research.

    You throw all these radical things out there like I've proposed those ideas but I haven't. Even small steps would help in the long run, but you're acting like reducing carbon emissions to zero is the only way to go for people "on my side".

    "Wait and see" implies "let's do nothing" and so does a lot of what you're saying about not being happy with the current state of research and not "being convinced". You seem to be in denial about the fact that humans are having a negative impact on the environment. What would it take to convince you?

    I don't personally have a perception problem. I think we're doing harm to the planet we live on and things could be done to prevent some of that. How is that a "perception problem"? Likewise, I could say you and others that are advocating "wait and see" have a denial problem.

    And again, I never proposed any specific measures at all. So, no "drastic" measures have ever come out of my mouth.

    Now that I think about it, have any measures at all been proposed in this thread by anyone?

    People seem to be quick to jump to one extreme or the other. It's like you (in the general sense, not just an individual) think it's either go all in and change everything or do absolutely nothing. Why can't there be a sort of middle? Do some small things or make small changes somewhere? Even consider things instead of just deny that a problem exists.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 09:36 AM
  25. pappy53's Avatar
    I believe that most of this "climate change " talk is motivated by money.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    03-07-2014 09:39 AM
175 ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. Hello All.
    By Charles Ray1 in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 10:09 AM
  2. my wallpaper was distorted ?
    By preppystud in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 07:01 PM
  3. [APP][Free] Fitness App customizable for dieting and workout
    By 4Fitting in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 09:15 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD