Greenpeace posts latest Guide to Greener Electronics: Sony Ericsson first, Nintendo in dead last
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 27th 2007 12:20PM
posted Nov 27th 2007 12:20PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Greenpeace is just a home for communists. They don't call out Al Gore for having a $30,000 per month utility bill but instead try to attack the companies that are succesful. Communists!!!
Try $30,000 per YEAR, not MONTH.
Also, Gore pays more for wind/hydro power.
Finally, he buys carbon offsets for whatever CO2 is left.
Maybe that's why they did not "call him out"?
@Chris
Where can I buy some of these scarcely found carbon offsets? They don't seem to sell them at any local store?
That's a scam and a half.
Give us money and we'll invest it in wind farms, planting trees or methane capture or whatever people think will save the planet. Key word. INVEST. Oh wait forgot. He's on the board of the largest venture capital firm investing in global warming strategies. So is buying carbon offsets like say.. buying stock in a company he owns. Nahh couldn't be that simple. Nothing says a dollar he spends saves any tons of CO2. It may lead to a removal of it when an investment matures down the road or it may lead to someone buying expensive overpriced wind generators from a state congressman. A carbon offset is an unsupervised, unaccountable investment in an idea that eventually money is going to turn into a fixed amount of greenhouse gas reduction instead of greenback bank account reduction. There's no refund if zero tons of CO2 was removed. might as well buy lottery tickets.
The best part is for only $90 you could plant enough trees to cancel out your carbon emissions and you could live a great hippie lifestyle. Even better, when you don't renew your carbon credit, we'll sell those same trees you used last year to someone else to make them feel better. tree's need owners or they'd die ya know.
I am NOT saying offsets are a solution. I was only pointing out the lack of facts in the first post.
Regarding so called offsets, some people actually don't mind investing in strategies that reduce pollution, promote environmental education, and research new technologies. Believe it or not, people are not looking for a monetary return, as you seem to indicate. It's not the point that $5 equals 1 pound of carbon (or whatever). The point IS that people can choose to make a effort in promoting a cleaner, sustainable future, people including Al Gore.
I'm always amazed, how bad a word communist semms to be in the US... Apparently, everyone not liked is communistic or (if very obsessive) a nazi. Maby even a communist-nazi.
Get over it already!
As for greenpeace: I don´t care for your oppinion eather, and I don´t call you a republican (if you don´t get it: think about what kind of word I may find offensive..)
F*ck Greenpeace
Yeah, f*ck greenpeace. They are a bunch of useless whore. Why even care what they have to say? Lets dump some toxic wastes into you neighborhood. Just to show them we don't care.
I'm very interested in, and supportive of, efforts to clean up big corporations and keep the planet healthy.
But Greenpeace is more about sensationalism, media, and crazy wackos than actually doing good for the planet.
Companies should be concerned with how green their operations and products are. But when you look at Greenpeace, and the way they rate companies, their opinion is pretty much worthless.
That's why f*ck them. Not f*ck global responsibility.
Yeah right. You are actually doing nothing but talk and bitches and sitting at your computer. At least Greenpeace are doing something. Sure they've gone overboard with some of their demands but if they aren't the one voicing and stepping up to do anything about, who will? You? Do you think these companies give a rat ass about the environment? They're here to make money. Since Greenpeace have the reputation and name, they are the one that actually challenge these corporations.
To quote a comment on Joystiq quoting Kotaku...
"As pointed out on Kotaku, if you'll look at the report, you'll notice that they gave Nintendo a crappy score because they couldn't find any information on Nintendo's FAQ. Let me repeat that:
They have a score of ZERO because there is no information.
If you look at the report, it just says no info in every column. I'll admit Nintendo should be more open with that info but to say that they are the largest polluter among the console makers based on this information is simply a lie. I suspect Nintendo gets this grade because the Wii is still so popular, just like when they bashed the iPod as killing our children and puppies simply because it was the most high profile gadget.
Companies should have these goals firmly in mind, but there's not enough info here to base any decisions off of."
Yes Nintendo should publish this information, but saying they are the worst because you can't find it and can't be bothered to ask for it is just stupid.
I wonder if they tried to eat this like they did the iPhone to discover toxic materials.
Thats hilarious.
Bob:"well, we have no information on them... I guess we shouldn't even include them"
Mike:" are you kidding! lets just throw them in dead last and stir up some attention since the wii is hot! no one would give a shit about this survey otherwise"
Bob:"I hear cash registers!"
Nintendo actually has a very concerted environmental and recycling policy. There was an article on it somewhere, and if you e-mail Nintendo's customer support or call them, they can get you a copy of their top notch policy.
It is hard to imagine any of these companies being more concerned than what I read about Nintendo. They are, after all, headquartered in the Pacific Northwest.
This is exactly what Green Peace has done. Apple was equally secretive about their operations (its just that they're secretive about everything), and GreenPeace was jumping all over them for not complying with whatever level of corporate transparency they demand, but don't tell you about.
Steve then got fed up with their crap and posted some information about how instead of being "dead last", they were one of the most progressively eco-friendly computer makers in the world, that their schedules for phasing out toxic chemicals have been in place for a while, and was years ahead of competitors. GreenPeace has yet to figure out that their ignorance does not determine how green a company really is.
I imagine over at the GreenPeace headquarters that their intern compiles some list of information hastily grabbed from website FAQ's, and then they run it through a borked spreadsheet that equates with 0, and then that's sent straight to the website's frontpage as their "Guide to blah blah".
whats stupid is that Nintendo has released information, especially in Japan under their "Corporate Social Responsibility" plan. Its just that its not in English, maybe Greenpeace should have first hired a translator or called the company up before giving them a "0" for no information.
http://www.inside-games.jp/news/214/21490.html
@Temple
Nice. I love it when some general commenter on some random news aggregation blog hands an organization their ass in a bag like that. How long did you have to research to find that? Seriously, Nintendo should sue Greenpeace for libel. They published an article containing misinformation which could in a very real way damage the company. Greenpeace actually carries some financial clout in the hippie crowd. Nintendo is headquartered in Japan, so it seems perfectly reasonable that this information might be in Japanese.
Suppose Engadget (a technical blog that carries some clout in the geek crowd) published an article saying that the Sony Corporation kills helpless puppies and bathes all of their products in slayed puppy blood, while offering no substance to back up that statement, you can bet there would be a libel suit. I don't really see how this is any different.
Seriously, does anyone even care what Greenpeace has to say about anything? The entire concept of Global Warming is a freaking joke. How many years ago was it that we were supposed to slip into another ice age? And just because we now have a plethora of kook celebrities on the bandwagon for it doesn't make it any more real. As a matter of fact the more TV networks, movie stars, and car companies (I mean, who trusts them?) start ringing the "Green" bell, the more I know it's bullshit. We need to be good stewards of the place we live, there's no denying that, but to think that we have the power to control a system that has been running on it's own for millions of years, and that we've ruined it in what, 150 years of "Industry" is ludicrous.
I feel sorry for you.
No need to pity me friend. I didn't have to sit through that DiCaprio movie.
The new ice age was supposed to have happened in the 1990's. Obviously, it did not.
@Matt: you feel sorry for Fred because he's telling the truth? There is very little actual evidence that man is having an effect on the climate. Heck, we only have actual meteorological data for the last 100-150 years. To think that we have this much of an effect on a random system like the weather is giving us too much credit as a species.
But, and this is a big BUT: I don't think we shouldn't try to take better care of our environment. We should try to reduce our energy consumption. We should pollute less. That's just being a good person and a good neighbor. I think Fred would agree with me on this. If the delusion of global warming helps bring this about, well fine. But don't kid yourself into buying the propaganda.
You probably belive that Intelligent Design is real science too?
I'm right there with ya, Jimbo. I'm perfectly fine with taking care of the place we live. I encourage it, but do it TRUTHFULLY! Don't try to trick me into it and don't talk to me about "Global Warming" while you use enough energy for probably a couple of hundred people! (that's you, Al Gore)
Maybe you should watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
Why mark him down? He's absolutely correct. Over 90% of carbon dioxide emissions from the surface of the earth are caused by respiring organisms on the surface of the ocean. That leaves less than 1% of our emissions to everything else. Minus the respiring matter (humans, cows, plants) etc, add the photosynthesising plants and that just leaves industry, transportation and technology.
Add to that the fact that it has been proven that CO2 emissions increase FOLLOWING temperature rises, and that number ain't lookin' too significant now, is it?
yes, you're probably right, fred. You saw through the tissue of lies concocted by thousands of climate scientists. Congrats.
"but to think that we have the power to control a system that has been running on it's own for millions of years, and that we've ruined it in what, 150 years of "Industry" is ludicrous."
look at a g*ddamn graph, you idiot. Note how much global population and CO2 emissions have shot up in the last 150 years. I'm assuming you failed whatever remedial math and/or science classes you took, so I will point out the obvious: it's an exponential progression, meaning things have changed very quickly in a very short period of time. The evidence is already there staring you in the face, you're just too ignorant to see it.
How are you, and your cadre of scienticians going to tell me how shit is gonna be in a few years (decades?) when the f'ing weather guy can't for sure tell me what it's gonna be like outside TOMORROW? Obviously, because I have read things, and disagree with your assessment I must be a complete gibbering retard! Maybe if the movement had more well spoken and even-minded geniuses like yourself I would be convinced?
So, because one prediction made by a theory didn't come to reality soon enough, the entire theory must be bull crap?
Darwin's theory of evolution suggests that dimwits will eventually go extinct, but your presence clearly shows that hasn't happened yet. I guess that makes Darwinism bull crap, too.
And apparently you haven't taken a single statistics class. Come back when your evidence is better than "just look at it"...
Not saying that we shouldn't try to decrease pollutants, but if you've taken any econ classes you'd understand the problem with making drastic changes to mandated environmental policies. And that could start an entirely new debate on the merits of ..forget it. If you can't understand the massive problems with extrapolation and causation vs. correlation (or even reverse causation if new reports are to be believed), I won't dare delve deeper.
Awwww.... you're so cute when you're scientifical! Again, because I disagree with something that is not tangible I am an idiot. It's funny how when someone is losing an argument they will resort to name calling in order to throw the other person off the topic. Look, this is all very nice, and I'm sure that all these comments are earning you tons of Carbon Offset thingies, ok? But until I can see some real results I'm not buying, OK? I see a pumped up load of bullshit that's gonna go away in a couple of years, just like every other fad that we get our hands on.
Here, I'll prove it to you, ok? When we had Katrina and everybody was all up in arms about it, what happened? The globe was in PERIL! We were gonna have the worst hurricane season ever, ever, and we're all gonna get drowned and die! Right? Remeber that? And what happened? Nothing, one of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent history. So, when does this data start bearing fruit? When are we all gonna get burned up by the sun or washed away?
The point that you are missing here is that I agree with taking care of the environment, I just don't like being bs'ed! Why is that so tough?
Breating organisms on the surface of the ocean are engaged in "carbon neutral" activities, they're releasing the greenhouse gases they consumed in the course of eating/living. In fact, phytoplankton actually remove carbon from the atmosphere by breathing it in, and then carrying it to the bottom of the ocean when they die.
Digging/drilling up carbon that's been buried for tens of millions of years is adding MORE Carbon to the system than was there.
Burning down millions of acres of trees in the amazon river basin is removing the earths ability to sequester carbon and releasing carbon that had been captured in the last few hundred years.
@Timay:
I like that guy so much I'll let him come home and f*ck my sister!
This is the best argument I've ever seen made to take action to prevent global warming whether it's real or not. This is why I'm going to trade in both my minivan and my Jetta for a Toyota Highlander hybrid (hey, I have 3 little kids and need the space). I'm also going to buy the Gateway 30" LCD and ditch my old Sony GDM-FW900 electricity eating monitor. What else can I do? I bet I, and many others, can do a lot to combat global warming. Unfortunately, like everything else, the products available to combat this new threat are available to people with bank. Products like solar energy panels, electric cars, and other stuff are expensive. This is becoming a major profit making business where products exist that would help the environment in major ways but as soon as they are available they become cost-inhibitive to the normal Joe. Hell, even if we elect Kucinich for the next Pres probably won't mean much because of the lobbying power controlling Congress. BTW, on a side note, did you all see Kucinich's wife? What a hottie. Now back on topic. What about Nuclear Power plants? Those are way cleaner on the environment than oil or coal based ones. But the environmentalists hate these. What about wind mills? We wanted to create a windmill farm in the waters of Cape Cod around the Hyannis Sound. But guess what? That's Ted Kennedy's turf. He put up an up-roar about how it would damage the looks of that area. It just happens that the area where they wanted to build these is extrememly windy and would've provided good source of energy for that area. What about electric cars or bio fuel cars? The auto industry lobby is preventing this from happening. Do you know how expensive a solar panel for a home is?
I can see us taking action to help this but it's going to take a major effort from the Government and Industry to make this happen.
Oh, and BTW, when he said spread the word, it almost sounded like a religion. Maybe they should team up with Jehova's Witnesses and spread both words :)
@ mac
Mac, where did I say anything about changing economic policy or anything? I am only going so far to say that global warming exists and is due in part to human activity. The rest is you putting words into my mouth.
I just wanted to point out that it is g*ddamn ignorant of fred to claim that the human race has had no effect on the environment when clearly it has. And no, I didn't prove the causal link between human greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, because the work has already been done for me by more qualified human beings. I'm not going to prove global warming in an engadget comment.
My issue is with fred's attitude that he is smarter than "them scientifical ivory tower eggheads," then proceeds to present a series of breathtakingly inane (and incorrect) examples to "disprove" global warming. If anyone needs a lesson on statistics, extrapolation, and causation vs. correlation, it's him, not me.
@ all of you lameasses
"You're just too stupid to understand why I'm right, but I can understand it, that's why I'm right!"
Heheh. Seriously though, no matter which side you're on, you're getting facts and figures from media and politicians whose sole purpose for existing is to gain public attention. Even if the scientists aren't lying, you can still bet that both sides are doing their very best to ensure that all the info gathered is spun to the favor of their own benefit, and that you either don't get, or don't believe any of the data that puts holes in their agenda.
Personally, I don't believe any of the global warming situation merely because of hypocrisy surrounding it, the sheep supporting it, and the vagueness of the subject as a whole.
You have people willing to do everything from shout down people on the internet and real life, try to pass laws restricting businesses from operating, take land away from private citizens without any reimbursement, to blowing up buildings and killing people, all for the cause of "Saving the earth"
The "New and Improved" formula in my shampoo that makes my skin break out in a rash is going to somehow save the planet? If the temperature starts to go down again in 20 years, will it be because of the amazing efforts of the globalists? or will it be because this time there's an ice age coming that is caused by man's tampering?!
Does anyone remember the online scam where the guy was threatening to eat a rabbit, whose picture he posted on the net, if he didn't receive a certain amount of money from people sending in contributions? People actually sent in money for this stupid rabbit. Out of all the millions of rabbits, and the millions of rabbits that are used for food, he got thousands of dollars in order to keep this thing alive.
There was no possible way to know if he was telling the truth about being willing to eat it, or even truly having it to begin with. On top of that, no one had any guarantees that he wouldn't eat it anyway, and there was certainly never any mention made of any other animals that he might be eating in the meantime (chicken, beef, pork, other unmentioned rabbits, etc) yet people still sent the money in.
Does anyone else see the correlation here?
You think Global Warming is a joke? I think the polar bears that are starving to death would beg to differ.
Mike, it's totally you. You tell me that I should believe your "more qualified human beings" but why? I mean it's one thing to have real proof that something happens. When it's cold water freezes, etc. But I can make a set of number say anything I want. If you want to turn your thinking over to a bunch of "more qualified human beings" knock yourself out. Hey, enjoy your chosen religion.
Oh, and Heather, have fun saving all the cute fuzzy animals and eating the ugly ones.
Rabbits taste good.
I totally agree!!! Global warming propaganda is some of the worst out there.
Sorry Fred, but years (even decades) of study, research and training in a particular subject does make people who undertake such efforts more qualified than a layman (you, for instance) in said subject. Simple fact of the human mind. Just because you can't understand something does not in fact mean that it can't be understood (at least to a greater degree than a layman is able to).
"I don't see it, it must not be there" can be a pretty dangerous frame of mind. However, all this is moot, since you seem to be for environmental responsibility, so why argue the particulars?
MasterCKO, I agree with you to a certain point. I know that these are people who are by no means laymen. I am saying that there is a huge propaganda machine built up around this problem and that from my vantage point we have far too much hype built up over an issue that makes everybody feel good even though there's not REAL proof. But hey it keeps us distracted from the real problems we have so "HEY EVERYBODY LET'S BE GREEN!" Let's not talk about the shitty things that people are doing TO OTHER PEOPLE, never-mind the environment! This whole thing to me is the human scale equivalent of going and kicking over ant piles to watch the ants rebuild them.
On the flip-side of your coin, insisting that something is there doesn't make it materialize. The poor guy with OCD is sure that he left the oven on until he goes and checks it 10 times.
As far as arguing the particulars, the particulars in this case that Greenpeace lies over and over to draw attention to things. Would you then say that it's ok for someone to accuse you of a heinous crime and have you thrown in jail because you have chronic halitosis and they don't want to smell it? Wouldn't it be easier just to give you a mint and address the actual issue?
@mike
My point is completely lost on you. Read some of the reports you remember from news stories over the last few years, and you can note that they base their conclusion off of a major assumption and extrapolation (an awfully bad idea- can I predict population now based on growth rates during the baby boom? What if I used those rates to predict what our population will be in a 100 or 1000 years from now?). Either way, it's beyond difficult to "prove" causation, and with all the new studies (okay, that's hyperbole, I think it was one new study), it might even be reverse causation- that increases in temperature might actually cause increased CO2 emissions.
And nowhere am I saying screw the environment, and I bet most everyone would agree that decreasing emissions is a good thing, I just want to remind everyone about how ridiculously unscientific most early papers on global warming were. Crackpots are crackpots, doesn't matter what side of the spectrum they're on.
@Grey you stupid lameass
I just called you stupid, and a lamass, therefore I'm right. Yeah, only in America. And that's exactly why global warming could be sold as a "hoax", only in America. The loser "side" who was incompetent at protecting the country from terrorists decides they can still look tough by name-calling the other "side" as gay-environmental-freak-who-love-abortions-and-would-fall-for-scams-because-of-lack-of-faith-in-God. So without looking into any facts ( I mean, what fun is that? ), sheep started joining the name-calling side ( I mean, it's more fun, and it feeds the ego that you can't get from your life, right? ).
Did you ever wonder why that only in U.S. is global warming a political issue, and not so for the rest of the world?
Your fellow good citizen's lifetime hard work gets recognized by Nobel, and you bash him, only because real losers who'd never done any good work sounds really "macho" pitching their books and public personas when they trash-talk. Only in America.
You talk about scams. Do a survey of people believing in global warming a hoax versus those who don't. Chart them against those who believe in Bush and those who don't. And chart them against those who had actually fallen for scams or suffered from bubbles and those who had never. Yeah, you'll see your scam correlation right there.
liin. This thought that only us Americans are arguing against "Global Warming" as it is currently defined is not correct, and as a matter of fact is you look at the link listed later in the comments here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 Thanks, tstreesapx. The guy making the statement is FRENCH.
Stepping up for Al Gore is a little stupid in this argument considering the Greenpeace is all up Apple's ass and Good 'ol Al sits on their board.
Here is a fun little piece on Al Gore:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.html
Be careful not to spin this into a Dem vs. GOP thing. It is clearly not. I ascribe to no party, and find that most people who do are not much for independent thinking. The passion behind what you are trying to say is admirable, but you are drowning your message in rhetoric.
@Fred
I was replying to Grey's comments, not this article.
I don't agree with Greenpeace one bit. They just want to make noise, and those noise don't help because they're barking insignificant stuff. Product with toxic chemicals makes recycling more a problem. But reducing impact is always Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. Reducing redundant/non-functional parts of a product is key. Creating products with longer lifespan is key. Reducing manufacturing process is key. Giving life to a dead product by turing it into something else is good. Recycling should be your additional last effort to keep impact to a minimum. Greenpeace just want to make themselves known, they just want to be in the news. They don't praise companies that creatively make products with minimal part counts, they don't promote those companies that make discarded posters and sails into bags. They are always negative, and only about parts of hot items having problem being recycled.
@Fred
If you think I'm spinning, just do the survey like I said. You'll definitely see Bush supporters as "global-warming-hoax" supporters. And they'll definitely see those who deem the crisis urgent as weak liberal gay tree huggers who have no God and stand no chance against terrorists. Then, do a survey around the world, even in China. You'll see almost all would be concerned about global warming except Bush supporters.
If it's just Al Gore's political agenda, why would the international community ( again, even China ) gives a rat's ass about Gore's political agenda? You think scientists worldwide are stupid losers who can't see it and people who need to drive trucks and quote TV personas to secure their manhood knows better?
ha!
Perhaps "Bioshock" should be for the Wii
havent they lost their credibility long ago? i feel like they are into putting down whatever company has been getting publicity lately. they were after apple for a while, but now im guessing they will be on nintendos ass. how about they just start making their own electronics out of wheat and grass
Gree-peace
Great spelling there.. it is a hard word to remember, seeig that they have oly bee aroud for a few decades..
And yes turnersville ad KR, real bad people trying to save some of whats left of this planet.. shame on them. And also shame on them for trying to get nintendo to be open about their numbers so consumers can make informed choices..
Wait...you dare try to correct their spelling??? Did you check your own post? I see a few mistakes...
Whahahaha, great observatio mate.. really, brilliat...
I don't think your average person has a problem with environmentalism (sans the idiots in the SUVs but hopefully gas prices will obliterate them). I do have a problem with Greenpeace as I don't see their actions as helping the cause. Their sensationalist, shock tactics have backfired long ago and today all environmental movements are hindered because of the "boy who cried wolf".
It is a shame because there are real environmental problems which should be addressed like electronics recycling. I have a lot of gizmos and when I'm done with them I'd like to be able to take them back to a store I bought them from and recycle them. I can do that with some things but not all.
Also, can I buy an "n"?
Here's the deal dude. Shame on you for hiding behind the guise of "informed consumerism". If you had "informed" yourself on Greenpeace and the people who run it you'd look into why one of the Co-Founders of Greenpeace felt the need to quit.
As far as "what's left of this planet" goes, that's the exact kind of useless drivel that Greenpeace wants you to spread. Shame on you for being a mindless automaton.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly.
With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly.
With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
(Sorry for the doublepost)
Your funny Fred, are you saying that we don't have an issue with pollution, habitat destruction and extinction of species? Or are you just upset with Greenpeace for some reason?
You don't have to like or agree with everything an organization does to support their goals. And flawed as they may be, I'm pretty sure their intentions towards the environment are pretty good.
Well David, what I am saying is that just like anything that gets this kind of airtime that "Global Warming" is not as bad as we are being led to believe. It's all just a shell game. The actual unadulterated numbers do not back up the claims that are being made by multiple groups. The changes we are seeing in our environment are negligible. But because someone somewhere needs some money for a study on something they tie that change into global warming and all of a sudden some money shows up in their coffers. If you want an interesting (if fictional) take on this you should look at State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He uses real science to back up his story, and there is a a lot of bonafide data in there. I'm not saying it's the freaking Bible (so don't start) but it does offer a good perspective.
Here's a question for you who are buying in to the hype. When was the last time you looked at the numbers yourself. Most of you are fairly intelligent, right? Educate yourselves! Just because Kermit the Frog (who I like, REALLY!) shows up in a Ford ad and starts belting "It Ain't Easy Bein' Green" as he drives over Ms. Piggy in a hybrid SUV doesn't make "Global Warming" real!
OK Fred lets try this. The graph, which this whole thread refers to isn't actually about global warming per se, its about " toxic chemicals and recycling " this is a related subject, but its not really the same.
now, if you want to put a fictional book up against the scientific method, maybe you should just stick to the bible. If you however choose to go for the scientific method, you might understand that it doesn't mean that you have to check all the number or do every test yourself, there is a clever thing called "peer review" that tries to separate the good shit from the bullshit, thanks to peer reviewed publication we can keep up with the basics without checking all the numbers ourselves. Now is it perfect? No. But so far it has proven to be the most effective tool to understand reality.
Those gadgets you have in your pocket work because scientists use these methods, (sure, they need the occasional SF writer to know where to go) most of the things we touch today are made partly thanks to the discoveries science has given us. Now, why not believe this same scientific method when it tells us that adding some ingredients to our environment is a bad idea?
Sure this biosystem has been around for a long time, but are you saying that's why it isn't fragile? I mean, if we wanted to, couldn't we make enough poison to kill most life on the planet? So we obviously have the power to change things. Now if we can do it on purpose, couldn't we also do it to a lesser extend unknowingly?
1 last thing, that corporations are "greenwashing" their products doesn't mean there isn't a real problem
David. You cannot negate the facts that are brought up in the book
just because the story is fiction. If a Harry Potter book said that
the sky is blue would that then cease to be a fact? I'm familiar
with the scientific method. I learned it here:
http://www.makeitsolar.com/images/chartmethod002.jpg.
I like it because it has pictures so my feeble mind is attracted to
it. (SHINY!) It's funny, I don't see "peer review" in there
anywhere. And as far as that goes if all the scientists who agree
with each other sign off on each others stuff then you've got what we
have here. Those who disagree are labeled as callous lunatics who
hate the planet! I'm not a scientist but if it looks like BS, and it
smells like BS, I'm not going to taste it just to be sure, I'm going
to accept it as BS.
The thing with science is; It works. I didn't read Crichton's book (more of a cyberpunk reader myself) but I did read some things about his position on global warming and it seems he has a pretty strong opinion there.
I am skeptical about anyone who claims to know better then the going scientific consensus, but i believe my skepticism wouldn't get in the way of accepting new and compelling evidence. So if tomorrow a new and better explanation would come by that is in line with the observations and measurements I will be sure to look into that also. Thats what those who favor the scientific method has been doing for a while; looking for the simplest most elegant explanations. It happens that now, the overwhelming consensus points towards a spherical earth, E=MC squared and global warming, but if you have a theory that points in another direction and you're willing to back that up with facts you can submit a paper any time. What I have a problem with is the cherry picking of evidence that seems to be all the rage the last few years, it seems to just get us deeper into the crap every single time. (maybe thats the stuff you're smelling)
Ok, so a couple of points for you before I move on with my life here. First. Your examples of the scientific method in action are poor in relation to the point you are making. We know that the Earth is spherical because we have directly observed it. E=MC2 is accepted as fact. But Global Warming is a newer theory and while it's acceptance as fact is going largely unchallenged, I believe that goes back to this hype machine, and that is not a good thing because it have not been definitely proven.
Your "simplest most elegant solutions" (Occam's razor?) do not ALWAYS bear out as fact. The simplest solution tends to be correct but then again, what is there that is simple about climate change or it's study?
Bottom line, I do believe that there is climate change. It's an observable fact. I do believe that we should take care of our home (Earth). But I have not seen anything that proves a definite link between the two things. Short of rampant polluting on a global scale (over an extended period), or nuclear holocaust I just don't think that we have the power to screw up this planet. And in reality the planet would recover, we'd just be screwed.
I guess they didn't bother taking into account the fact that Big N uses half the power of the other consoles.
Half? Get your numbers right! the Wii uses approximately 1/10th the power of the other consoles.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm
I'd like to see the chart that is based on real actions made by companies, not promises of future actions. Sony and Samsung are probably up there because of all the things they said they plan to do. Apple has been low on the list simply because they won't disclose future actions.
I'm surprised they didn't Intel, AMD, or any other Semi Conductor company. They're pretty big polluters considering all the toxic byproducts created when making silicon chips.
I'd love to see what electronics they use to produce this kind of advertisement... :D
no sassy mac, i tell you.
just leafes and what not.
Perhaps Greenpeace should have read this so as not to blindly give Nintendo a flat zero rating.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment
Yep, no information at all.
The Apple report is still talking about the stuff they admited was a
lie...
http://gonintendo.com/?p=20145
here's some things that nintendo does to go "green"
Sigh....new to the comment system. So sorry that was in the wrong spot.
And apparently you haven't taken a single statistics class. Come back when your evidence is better than "just look at it"...
Not saying that we shouldn't try to decrease pollutants, but if you've taken any econ classes you'd understand the problem with making drastic changes to mandated environmental policies. And that could start an entirely new debate on the merits of ..forget it. If you can't understand the massive problems with extrapolation and causation vs. correlation (or even reverse causation if new reports are to be believed), I won't dare delve deeper.
NINTENDO IS A GLOBAL TERRORIST!
recylce your dangerous Wii by sending it to:
Matthew Hilario
San Diego, Ca
aftermatth@gmail.com
I'm going to send you some poop.
Another dumb scale... Yay... DUMB SCALE THAT MEASURES IDIOTISM (DISGUISED AS "GREEN")!!! WOO-HOO... It measures something dumb in a dumb way with dumb criteria to represent dumbness... Like statistics based on a person's hair color, or statistic based on the width of the nose, or the size of genitalia (you know, it's not racist, sexist, etc... but just DUMB).
Wow, now I feel bad for buying that Sharp HDTV and Philips Home Theater to play my Nintendo Wii... I'll just have to use my handy Microsoft Keyboard/Mouse combo to navigate my Acer PC to the Returns page... if no one replies to my e-mail, I'll just call them up on my Motorola cell phone.
Way to innovate Nintendo!!!!!!
people are parasites and polluters...people are the foundation of companies....people should be recycled. we'll call it "population control". It's in the name of science. let's start with fred. we will put him in a recycling training facility and offer him cake as a reward. = )
dammit....that was in response to fred's remark about sending matt poop.
Soylent Green is People, Buddy
The electronics in my room give me an average score of 2.1
I think there is only one way to achieve a zero...
I have my mission.
Get rid of them all?
This is one of the most Misleading Graphs since the 2005 cnn poll about feeding tube being removed from that one lady in florida. http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220005
Perhaps if greenpeace put forth an effort to actually show these big corporations how things could be done, we'd actually advance as a society. Instead, greenpeace chooses to just bitch about what everybody else is doing.
I'm all for "saving the environment" I recycle a good plenty of materials. Anyway, I don't buy this climate change bs. As for the way greenpeace conducts this "Study" I understand why Nintendo is on this list, its cause they are the "top dog" and greenpeace wants to pressure (bully) them into listing which harmful chemicals (what am I goign to eat my wii?) are used in the machine. You guys think the war between capitalism and communism will be over anytime soon?
All you people are amazing. It all goes back to personal responsibility. It is so easy to shift the problem to something else so that you dont have to do anything. If you are confused why there are still conflicting opinions on Global Warming, maybe before doubting everything you should check this out:
* A January 2007 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, and the Government Accountability Project, GAP, "found that nearly half the 279 climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ from scientific papers or reports and many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work edited.”
* On February 7, 2007, Rick Piltz (who resigned his position with the Climate Change Science Program, CCSP in 2005 in protest of White House interference with climate science and now directs the Government Accountability Project (GAP's) Climate Science Watch) testified before the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that “the Administration suppressed official use of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts and has failed to continue the National Assessment process” and “the Administration has acted in a variety of ways to impede and manipulate communication about climate change by federal scientists and career science program leaders to wider audiences, including Congress and the media.”
* In 2003, the administration had Phillip Cooney, a petroleum lobbyist who at the time was the chief of staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, edit an Environmental Protection Agency report “to eliminate a reference that human activities were causing global temperatures to rise and weakened language on the consequences of climate change - the edits prompted EPA officials to delete the entire climate change section from report.” In March 20, 2007 Phillip Cooney testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about his extensive edits to environmental reports over the past several years. The committee report showed "hundreds of instances" of edits that tempered information of the destructive impact of global warming.
An administraioin where over half of its members sit of boards of oil companies are not going to be happy if we all convert to solar and wind energy and drive electric cards. If Al Gore is a hypocirty or not has nothing to do with the problem. maybe he is an asswhole but global warming is still a problem and we will suffer in 30-40 years. Jeepers! I feel like i am writing to 2nd graders.
Look, I'm not perfect, I make mistakes, but when I'm discussing/debating issues on the internet, I tend not to think highly of those who make horrible spelling errors. Perhaps since you felt like you are writing to second graders, you purposefully made these errors. Regardless, in terms of Al Gore, you are saying that he can be the biggest douchebag in the world, so long as he brings awareness to a problem that we don't even know exists? So, I too can pollute, use up as many resources as my money allows me too, and that too will be okay, so long as I spread the word about global warming/climate change? And on solar/wind.... Please, I'd love it if these technologies could replace gas/coal. Coal is horrible for the environment. The fact of the matter, is they don't produce much power yet. Hopefully they will in the future. Oh, anybody wonder what Greenpeace will have to say about the deadly chemicals found in solar panels? (perhaps they already have)
Leslie don't despair, there are a few other reasonable people out there. Apparently not many commenting on gadget sites though. It's mostly in the US that there's so much vehement and vitriolic denial of global warming, and that's probably because there's been such a concerted media campaign to spread this idea that there's still so much uncertainty. If you go elsewhere in the world where governments seem to respect their scientists rather than censor and denigrate them, you'll find there's much more widespread acceptance of the idea. In fact, most countries have accepted it long ago and are already well on their way towards doing something about it (with more benefit to their economies than harm). I guess American skeptics will say it's the rest of the world that's crazy.
What I would argue is that *even if* one assumes there is still a great deal of uncertainty, how is that any excuse not to take reasonable precautions? When people get in their cars they don't expect much chance of having an accident, but despite that high uncertainty they know how dangerous and expensive it could be if it did happen. So most people invest in insurance, wear seatbelts, and try to drive safely. It just makes sense. So even if someone believes global warming is still very uncertain, how can they argue that no precautions whatsover should be taken? Shouldn't we perhaps weigh the risk of taking zero action against the (ever-more-conclusive) possibility that all those crazy scientists might be onto something?
One thing that really gets me is this constant assertion that environmentalists and scientists all have some kind of big "agenda." It seems to be just too hard for some people to fathom that not everyone's goal in life is money and power. Believe it or not, some people actually do what they do because they believe in the cause and are just trying to make a difference. And I know a large number of those who read that statement probably won't even believe that, but believe or not, it's true, there are such people. And when the difference they're trying to make is something that will benefit all of us, and all of our children, to chastise and mock and disparage those individuals is a type of behaviour I just can't understand.
Yeah, this is in no way going to affect what I buy from any of the companies listed their.
Go SE go!!!!!!!!
Wow Fred, you really believe that the temperatures aren't change, that water isn't drying up, and that animals aren't dying off? That's amazing, I wish I could live my life as oblivious as you do yours. Perhaps you don't think the amazon rain forest isn't being cut down as well. And if it is, who cares right? it's just trees. I weep for your children.
Now, is that what I said? No, I very clearly stated several times that I think we should take care of what we have here. I just don't buy into the hype machine. Don't weep for my kids, they'll be fine, young, free thinking, individuals. Unlike yourself, apparently. It has nothing to do with being oblivious, it has to do with looking at both side of the story. I know that there are terrible things being done to pollute the environment, and I know that we can do a better job of policing and preventing it, but again, I do NOT believe it's as bad as it's being stated, and I DO believe that it's being stated that way to make people rich!
gotta love it when people don't know how to read. Look, there are other causes/answers to recent environmental issues that are blamed on "Global Warming" that is, to define global warming as the theory that carbon emissions from human/human technology is causing the planet to warm up and ocean levels to rise... rather than just the earth warming.
I never mentioned global warming either, I'm talking about careless people...
Well, fred, you're terribly wrong with the assumption that "it's not that bad".
I am a meteorologist with specialization in climatology from Slovenia (small backwater country in EU), so I am quite well informed about the current situation.
Basically, there is only one thing to be determined about global warming - Whether we have already reached the point of no return, or not.
Some examples of what has already happened:
There are plenty of children 10 years old and younger in central China who have NEVER seen the sun, as they live under perpetual smog clouds, so thick that the sun is not clearly visible. Those parts of China are actually cooling down (basically a nuclear winter effect) in contrast to the rest of the earth.
The oceans around the equator are heating up extremely fast. In southeastern asia, the ocean is about 1,5 degree celsius warmer compared to about 25 years ago. Once it becomes too warm, more algae will appear and they will drain oxygen from the ocean water (aerobic algae of course). Warmer waters also help create MUCH stronger hurricanes/cyclones, (a difference of half a degree celsius, can mean a difference of about 20-30km/h in maxium wind velocity) not to mention that a lot of sea life there will die out because the algae will limit the sun light only to the surface and most oxygen will be drained from the water. On the other hand some of that algae will also feed on CO2, but we can't really rely on that, eh? (Also cutting down CO2 wouldn't really help in the long run)
Another scary thing is that once the gulf stream will stop working (which it will, if the water temperature rises too much) a third of europe will loose their 'good' climate (eg, Norway, baltic states, UK, northern germany and poland, denmark, etc...) and they will all have very harsh winters and dry summers, wihch will extremely reduce crop yields. This situation can be expected within decades, so it is likely that our generation (around 30 years now) will be affected.
If I return to the chinese smog problems for a bit - that is probably the only reason why the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere is 'not rising too much'. Some areas already face +0.5,+0.75, and somewhere almost +1 degree Celsius increase in the last couple decades. A very basic calculation reveals that at current emissions, we will gain another +1 degree in less than 10 years. Some (imho a bit too pesimistic) predictions also say +6 degrees in about 25 years.
+6 degrees celsius increase of the average tempareture, give in layman terms means that most of the so called mid-west in the US would become an arid wasteland, cutting down US crop production by at least 50%. Basically that would mean that there wouldn't be enough food for about 33% of US citizens if not more, since other areas would see decrease in production as well. Not to mention that most of the world's coastal cities would be below water levels.
+6 degrees is easily reachable within 100 years, even if we start drastically cutting down CO2 emissions.
Why you might wonder?
Well, since CO2 is not the biggest culprit of global warming. Basically it's methane (CH4), which is the 2nd biggest factor for the current greenhouse effect. (The biggest is H2O aka water vapour, but that is 'natural'). And believe it or not, most of methane today is 'produced' by cows (farting, manure and similar stuff). And to feed more and more population every day we need more and more meat (which also means cows and other methane producing animals - basically anything that shits).
And the point of no return will likely be reached once we get enough water vapour into our atmosphere that there won't be any need for CO2 or methane to keep the greenhouse effect going on, the water itself would be enough, and there would be very little we could actually do. And we get more and more water vapour into the air everyday as the temperature inches its way up.
Also notable is that global warming didn't just happen overnight like some of you see it (and hence believe that it is a hype). It was basically kept from the public for a VERY long time. The data we have today clearly shows that official predictions from 20 years ago undershot the current situation by a HUGE margin. Those predictions which were not really favoured and thus remained in obscurity, were more on par with the real situation. Basically GW was 'unleashed' onto the public simply because even the regular masses began to notice that it's considerably warmer compared to 10 years ago.
Ok, to sum up (before I make a small scientific disertation out of this :)):
It's not as bad as the most pesimistic people say, but it's a LONG way from being OK at all. At current rates, we will foobar the earth within 50 years.
Regards,
bliki
bilki I appreciate your opinion first and second the fact that you have not come off like a self righteous jerk. I don't agree with it but I appreciate the way you have expressed it. To be clear I see the data that you have presented, but I don't necessarily see the links you're eluding too.
B-B-But Bill O'Reilly says Global Warming is a lie!
And you sir are about as dim as he is.
Go, SE, GO! :D
And the winner (to reach to green) IS.... (drum) EXXON!. (applause please).
Wheres Asustek in this list? =\