Greenpeace Targets Apple's Coal Use to Power Data Centers

[Cazalan]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]If global warming were real, it wouldn't be called "climate change" now.[/citation]
LoL

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Um,.. you obviously are missing the point. US coal plants that power Apple are clean. Thy already have current pollution control technology and most use clean coal. They ARENT the problem, but Greenpeace is making it an issue to get publicity. Meanwhile, the real problem is going unnoticed because it doesn't benefit the hypocrites who are Greenpeace.[/citation]

You're a moron if you think such a thing as "clean coal" even exists.

 

[john_4]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Actually China are pushing out Thorium LFTR tech at an frightening rate, within 20 years they will have the most efficient and clean power generation in the world and the USA will be stuck in the 1950's with Unranium PWR reactors and coal.[/citation]
And who will we thank for that, the Democrats, aka fascist left.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]If global warming were real, it wouldn't be called "climate change" now.[/citation]

Wow, you people really do exist. I guess it's time to burn all the science books and return to the dark ages.

 

[Cazalan]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Wow, you people really do exist. I guess it's time to burn all the science books and return to the dark ages.[/citation]


I guess you missed climategate? Fudged data, lost data. Email collusion and coverups.

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

[house70]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Wow, you people really do exist. I guess it's time to burn all the science books and return to the dark ages.[/citation]
Pretty much so. I used to get worked up about these issues as well, until I realized that the ones that pushed the status quo were parents to a herd of children themselves. Not a bad thing in itself, but given that I have no kids I became more relaxed about these issues, because regardless how quickly the planet heats up, it will still be after I'm long dead that the most frightening consequences will occur. It's their children that will have to bear the brunt of these consequences, and the funniest thing happens when I actually point that out to them. It's like seeing a cavalcade of stupidity stopping in it's tracks. I mean, dead stop.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Advertisements? You're joking, right? If not, then please do some research.Most advertising is designed to part you from your money and present what is being advertised in the most positive manner possible - doing so usually entails hiding or covering up facts which would call into question what is being advertised. And there are a lot of questions when it comes to coal - especially "clean coal."[/citation]
define clean coal

 

[jabliese]

@willard

"the arctic sea ice melted entirely for the first time in recorded history last year?"

Oh man, I gotta know where you got this one. Please please. For the current state of the arctic ice, check out:
http/nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
wander around the web site for past images. But, please, let me know who came up with the arctic sea ice melting completely last year, I need the laugh.

 

[teddymines]

These people are never happy. We could have millions of acres of wind mills, and greenpeace would complain that they are chopping up birds. Or if hillsides were covered with solar panels, they'd complain that the panels prevent the grass from getting enough sunlight.

 

[Cazalan]

Climate research is too new for any solid predictions. We have enough trouble predicting the weather on a weekly basis, much less for a whole year. I support the research and that requires significantly more data points.


"A dangerous combination would be increased warming without increased CO2. Since there is no proof whatsoever that increasing CO2 is having any significant effect on climate (any climate changes might be taking place by completely natural means over which we have no control), but there is incontrovertible evidence that increasing CO2 is positively beneficial with or without warming, then on the basis of risk mitigation and precaution it is utterly foolish to be reducing carbon emissions. As S.A. Cowling put it in Plants and temperature – CO2 uncoupling (Science, 1999, 285, 1500-1501)"

"We should be less concerned about rising CO2 and rising temperatures and more worried about the possibility that future atmospheric CO2 will suddenly stop increasing"

http/buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/

 

[Christopher1]

[citation][nom]onanonanon[/nom]it's the carbon dioxide that's the main problem [/citation]

Sorry, but no, it isn't. The fact is that the CO2 level we have right now has reached and exceeded the point where there is no added 'heat blanket' effect because CO2 is holding in all the heat it conceivably can.

What we should be focusing on are ozone-depleting chemicals. THAT is where most of our problems are coming from today.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]Cazalan[/nom]I guess you missed climategate? Fudged data, lost data. Email collusion and coverups.http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clima [...] ontroversy[/citation]

Forgive me if I question the legitimacy of a wikipedia article.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]Cazalan[/nom]You're the one without a clue. CO2 is what mammals exhale. These people are trying to convince us that BREATHING is bad for the earth. It's like Christian guilt for original sin. People fall for it as you have.[/citation]

There's a difference between each person exhaling 2.5lbs of CO2 per day and emitting 20-40lbs per day driving to work. Though, the carbon emissions isn't work worst offenders, they certainly play their part.

Even if carbon emissions and pollution doesn't destroy the entire world, it still makes it worse for the next generations and it's still responsible for the deaths of millions of our other plant and animal cohabitants in this world.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Though, the carbon emissions isn't work worst offenders, they certainly play their part.[/citation]

Boo for no edit function. That's what happens when you revise and don't review.

Correction: "Though, carbon emissions from vehicles aren't the worst offenders, they certainly play their part."

 

[Cazalan]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]There's a difference between each person exhaling 2.5lbs of CO2 per day and emitting 20-40lbs per day driving to work. Though, the carbon emissions isn't work worst offenders, they certainly play their part.Even if carbon emissions and pollution doesn't destroy the entire world, it still makes it worse for the next generations and it's still responsible for the deaths of millions of our other plant and animal cohabitants in this world.[/citation]

Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. The more CO2 the better. Take up botany.

The problem with penalizing profitable companies is you just push them overseas which has already killed American manufacturing. Government can fund research into more efficient catalytic converters, and other emission limiting devices.

Instead of penalties give incentives. My mothers work gives away plants every month for people to make homes more green. No one is educating people on the importance of gardening.

Recycling now is very common. It was almost non-existent 30 years ago. This wasn't done by penalizing civilians for not recycling, it was done by making recycling a lot easier and through education. Positive reinforcement makes a win-win situation.

 

[Cazalan]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Forgive me if I question the legitimacy of a wikipedia article.[/citation]

Then don't go through wikipedia. It was ALL over the web when it happened. Yes it was quickly brushed under the rug by the mainstream media.

Google "climategate", there's over 2 million links.

 

[del35]

They should also target Apple profit geared policy of making throw away devices that cant be serviced.

 

[uberpeeks]

I'm not going to bother refuting any of the dodgy science that's been discussed, apart from throwing in this useful resource for dealing with climate change myths.

http/www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Seriously?!!? You are still believing the CO2 lies? It has been shown that the global temperature is DECREASING!! and has been for the past DECADE!! Also, It has been warmer on this planet long before cars and coal plants ever showed up. Greenland was called that because it was once lush and green. They have found grape vines under glaciers from 10,000+ years ago meaning it was WARMER 10,000 YEARS AGO THAN IT IS TODAY!! Not to mention that the 'scientists' who are spouting the CO2 lies have been shown repeatedly to distort their data, hide it, and flat out lie about it. Also, the Greenhouse report summary from the UN was nothing like the actual report it was supposed to summarize. This being the reason that half the scientists took their names off of it.Or how about that the Sun, our source of heat, is actually going through a warm phase. It is hotter. Mars was hotter too, and then its too has been cooling slightly just like Earth. It is arrogant of people like you to think that the Earth, today in its present state, is perfect and should never change. The Earth has been going through cycles long before we showed up, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. I could go on about the CO2 lies, but I know you will never change your mind, because it is your religion. You will never believe anything to the contrary.Finally, those solar cells, and windmills you seem to love are horrible for being 'green'. If you truly believe that CO2 is the devil, then you should know that between the sourcing of materials for them, manufacturing, and installing they have a CO2 footprint that will take over 60+ years to break even. The sad part is that the life of windmills is only 50 years. Get a clue and stop being a demagogue.and finally you miss my point still. Go solar, go wind, go every 'green' energy source you can and the world will will be getting more pollution from one country alone (China) than we can undo by being 'green' You are worried about a pile of dust on your floor while a tornado rips your house up and swirls garbage all around you. Maybe you, and Greenpeace should focus on the bigger problems.[/citation]

Let me try to explain this to you... The Earth goes through phases, much like everything else in life does. Sometimes it get's colder, sometimes it gets hotter. Right now. we are getting hotter. Getting hotter always happens on the way to an ice age. Yes, we are getting hotter and as odd as it sounds, this inevitably leads to an ice age. The total CO2 that the entire human population has given out over it's entire lifetime is less than that of what most volcanoes produce, so it's not really the problem. The real pollution problems that we cause are the toxins other than CO2 (CO2 isn't really dangerous except in very high concentrations), trash, and some others. The human species is at fault for a big part of the acid rain problems and the trash problems. We are at fault for many toxins that we introduce, such as smog, CO (although this is also pretty common in nature like CO2 is, we make a lot of it and it is far more deadly than CO2), and more.

Yes, most of the green nuts are just idiots with good intentions. However, they are kinda right, just for the wrong reasons. Humans are causing great amounts of pollution and it is having adverse affects on the world. Their problem is that they are often wrong about what it is exactly that we are doing that is harmful.

Other such cycles include the solar cycles (the sun's activity increases and decreases on an 11 year cycle and a greater, much longer cycle, this just happens to coincide very well with the Mayan long count calendar and is probably what is supposed to begin at the end of the long count, not the end of the world like some idiots think), the Earth's magnetic field (our magnetic field has been weakening greatly for a long time. It is a small fraction of what it was just a hundred years ago and it's rate of decay seems to be accelerating. There is very well backed evidence supporting that we are affecting this, just how much is unknown by the public at this time. Keep in mind that nuclear bombs and such are being tested every year and that nukes cause huge EMPs and this is known to affect the Van-Allen radiation belts and probably has something to do with how the magnetic field is acting, although we are apparently overdue for a natural magnetic poles shift, so we might not even have a true effect on it at all beyond maybe accelerating the shift), and even more basic things such as the seasons.

The universe around us has many, many different cycles and they all go on as long as they can. Climate change is nothing new. For example, there was less oxygen and the world was significantly hotter back when the dinosaurs were around. It was getting hotter and hotter, up until an ice age after what seemed to be a comet impact. Climate change is obviously not caused by humans, although we could very well speed up the process of many changes b varying degrees. I'm still not convinced that we are really even a major factor in ongoing global warming at all.

In fact, one of our biggest problems that I have yet to mention is our depleting of the ozone layer. Now that is something that we are causing and should fix.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]isn't coal considered green energy?...from what i recall there are a lot of advertisements on tv showing the public that coal is green and efficient energy....greenpeace and all of those idiots can stick it where the energy from the coal does not shine[/citation]

Coal is not a clean energy. It has been improving, but no matter what, it can not be 100% clean... Although, we could try to find a way to keep the pollution that it can cause out of our atmosphere. Advertisements are not a trustworthy source of information, especially advertisements that have a company trying to make themselves look better than they are. I have to wonder if you were being sarcastic or not.