Apple now powered by 100% renewable energy

[divito]

20 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Not by that chart... what I am trying to say is we have no idea what is causing it, Earth's climate is far too complex for us to fully grasp. To fully understand it we would need a time machine and a computer far more powerful than we can even imagine. We don't even know for certain that CO2 is the cause, it is all one of our many theories on the matter. 

Given thermodynamics, it's silly to suggest we're having no effect. That doesn't mean nature hasn't developed ways to mitigate our production, whether through adaption or natural cycles of some kind, but there's effectively zero chance that we're not affecting it.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I meant a real source, not some random Youtuber.

Clearly you did not even click on the video since the sources are provided for you in the description.....

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

It is impossible to deny that the global temperature has become overall warmer and more extreme as more greenhouse gases are emitted.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/no-underlying-global-temperature-increase-for-20-years/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/#7d6df0672a4c

 

And that was just in a random search, looking at the first few results.

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Clearly you did not even click on the video since the sources are provided for you in the description.....

Oh, I'll check it out, I'm just surprised that you didn't post a real source.  First things first, though.  I had to correct some more misinformation above.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

And that was just in a random search, looking at the first few results.

Exactly, some random research from some random people. For every 1 person you find to say that Climate change is debatable there are literally every other climate scientist to disagree with them. 

 

To think that humans are not at the very least accelerating climate change when our planet is so tiny and our carbon footprint is so large is beyond me. 

 

Climate change is real, and the amount of "evidence" saying otherwise is absolutely dwarfed by the facts. 

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm just surprised that you didn't post a real source.

Well I did, you just didn't care enough to even click the video.......

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Clearly you did not even click on the video since the sources are provided for you in the description.....

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I was right.

 

Quote

Where does 97% come from?

• In 2013 a study by Cook et al. was published entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature".
• This study analysed 11,944 peer reviewed papers published between 1991-2011 in climate science literature.
• Of these papers, 4013 expressed a position on human-caused climate change. Of these, 3894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change.

Note that out of nearly 12,000 papers, he only reviewed a little over 4,000 of them, focusing strictly on those that he believed supported his claim, then got the "97%" myth from just those papers.  That means it's actually close to 33%, and not even all of those scientists agreed with Cook's method of determining which ones agreed with CC (there were actual pro-CC scientists who took umbrage with Cook over his methodology).

 

Now, I point out to you the new study (note the underlined sections in points 2 and 3).

Quote

99.94%

• In 2017 James Powell published a meta-analysis of peer reviewed climate change literature from 1991-2015, inclusive of 54,195 articles.
• Using rejection as the criterion for consensus he found 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. 
• This is consistent with Cook et al. who described increasing acceptance over time.

In other words, the new numbers use the same flawed methodology as the first bout of fiction.  Interesting that they refuse to provide the real numbers of how many papers were actually used to justify this load of carp.

 

It's all a big sham, and I can't believe anyone intelligent would actually fall for this.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Exactly, some random research from some random people.

So, Forbes isn't a legit enough source for you?  Sheesh.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

It's all a big sham, and I can't believe anyone intelligent would actually fall for this.

wonder who is being shammed......

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

So, Forbes isn't a legit enough source for you?  Sheesh.

What has Forbes done to become entitled to be objectively true?

 

Uhhhhhhh, nothing. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

wonder who is being shammed......

Whatever, I posted actual sources and showed how the numbers you provided were flawed, but you go ahead and believe the lie.  I wash my hands of this thread.

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

What has Forbes done to become entitled to be objectively true?

 

Uhhhhhhh, nothing. 

Then what makes Forbes less true than some video from a random politically biased youtuber?

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Whatever, I posted actual sources and showed how the numbers you provided were flawed, but you go ahead and believe the lie.  I wash my hands of this thread.

Mhm, yeah. Cool. Don't let that door hit you. 

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Then what makes Forbes less true than some video from a random politically biased youtuber?

I never claimed to say that David Pakman was more true than anyone. I simply linked his video on the coverage of this story. 

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I was right.

 

Note that out of nearly 12,000 papers, he only reviewed a little over 4,000 of them, focusing strictly on those that he believed supported his claim, then got the "97%" myth from just those papers.  That means it's actually close to 33%, and not even all of those scientists agreed with Cook's method of determining which ones agreed with CC (there were actual pro-CC scientists who took umbrage with Cook over his methodology).

 

Now, I point out to you the new study (note the underlined sections in points 2 and 3).

In other words, the new numbers use the same flawed methodology as the first bout of fiction.  Interesting that they refuse to provide the real numbers of how many papers were actually used to justify this load of carp.

 

It's all a big sham, and I can't believe anyone intelligent would actually fall for this.

I think you’re misunderstanding the criteria. 

 

For the 97%:

There were 12000 studies on climate science in general. 

 

Out of those 12000 studies, only 4000 of them expressed a stance on human caused climate change. The other 8000 studies didn’t express whether humans had an impact or not. 

 

Out of the 4000 studies in which a position on human contribution to climate change, 97% of them agree that humans contributed to climate change. 

 

I know that the wording is a bit difficult for some to understand, but if you actually read what it says, it’s pretty clear. 

 

The mistake you are doing is attributing the 4000 studies that agree against the total 12000. You’re saying by default the other 8000 “must” then disagree, when that isn’t the case. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Out of the 4000 studies in which a position on human contribution to climate change, 97% of them agree that humans contributed to climate change. 

Except that's not the case, and I even addressed that in my post.

15 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

(there were actual pro-CC scientists who took umbrage with Cook over his methodology)

He attributed even neutral (and in a few cases, opposition) papers as in the "Pro-CC" camp.  Cook fudged the numbers to get the results he wanted.

[Canada EH]

On 4/9/2018 at 10:25 PM, DrMacintosh said:

renewable

are they buying solar or wind from producers yet still using the grid and claiming 100% renewable, or did they go all out with their own on site energy production facilities like solar which I doubt they did because they would need vast land to implement right next to their offices and factories.

[DrMacintosh]

14 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

are they buying solar or wind from producers yet still using the grid and claiming 100% renewable, or did they go all out with their own on site energy production facilities like solar which I doubt they did because they would need vast land to implement right next to their offices and factories.

They have their own land. Read the source lol

[Xander Cousins]

To be completely honest, Why are people discrediting Apple for doing something GOOD for a change. *cough* sorry inner Hate came out *cough* 

 

They have made enough reusable energy to cover their own demands on the power grid, so yes their stores may not be fully renewable energy but their Solar and wind farms replace the non-renwable energy they are using from the grid and maybe more.

 

being someone that despises Apple products in general I have to give them credit for doing this and not be petty that it was apple who done so, if they can get their manufactures to use renewable sources of energy then even better as it will spread the load of energy we are using from non-renewable sources a lot less. 

 

So in all fairness give them some credit for being green instead of Discrediting them over it because it isn't as if all their stores have solar panels on them.

[dalekphalm]

I'm not angry at Apple or discrediting them for doing what is arguably still a good thing.

 

But, when a company releases a misleading Headline for PR reasons (because let's be honest, that's why they're doing it - at least in part for Public good will), we can and should call them out for it.
 

Apple isn't 100% powered by renewable energy. Apple creates enough renewable energy to offset the buildings still powered by dirty energy. If they had simply made that their headline, I would be 100% okay with it - and I would (and still do) applaud them for their efforts.

 

People seem to think this is some black and white "either-or" type situation. It's not. So stop it. The world is full of grey. What Apple did is undoubtedly a good thing, and is a good start. But what they said in their headline is not factual - at least, not without bending the truth.

 

This is coming from someone who owns and uses an iPhone, so I'm not some "Apple Hater". Nor am I an Apple fanboy. I'm a rational individual who can and does look at multiple aspects of a situation.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

But, when a company releases a misleading Headline for PR reasons (because let's be honest, that's why they're doing it - at least in part for Public good will), we can and should call them out for it.

I think this is the big thing a lot of Apple defends are missing.

 

Apple: "Look at how awesome we are!"

LTT: "Nice, but you're really not as awesome as you say you are. Here is why..."

Apple defenders: "Why are you only hating on Apple? Go hate on Google or Microsoft instead! You're such an Apple hater!"

 

 

People are only "attacking" Apple in this thread because they are stroking their own dicks while posting misleading PR bullshit, and people are pointing it out.

Apple would most likely have gotten some shit thrown at them if they were being more open, honest and humble about what they were doing, but I am certain they would have gotten less shit, and it wouldn't have been as well deserved. If you're doing something good then you don't need to stroke your ego and exaggerate it.

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think this is the big thing a lot of Apple defends are missing.

 

Apple: "Look at how awesome we are!"

LTT: "Nice, but you're really not as awesome as you say you are. Here is why..."

Apple defenders: "Why are you only hating on Apple? Go hate on Google or Microsoft instead! You're such an Apple hater!"

 

 

People are only "attacking" Apple in this thread because they are stroking their own dicks while posting misleading PR bullshit, and people are pointing it out.

Apple would most likely have gotten some shit thrown at them if they were being more open, honest and humble about what they were doing, but I am certain they would have gotten less shit, and it wouldn't have been as well deserved. If you're doing something good then you don't need to stroke your ego and exaggerate it.

But it's not exactly exaggerating when using credits/offsets are a commonly accepted policy. Obviously it's physically impossible for Apple to control the power grids of large cities/malls/etc...

 

For all intents and purposes, there's no difference between powering all Apple locations with the clean power they generated and with powering the equivalent of all Apple locations with clean power -- either way they're removing the same amount of dirty power from play and thus having the same environmental impact (ignoring the obvious issue of dirty-power generation efficiency/transfer efficiency potentially making the total offset over or under).