Nope. The truth of the human role is only debated because people ignorant of the science debate it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Urges U.S. President to Stay in Paris Climate Pact
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What a nonsense are you writing, what does the weather in your neighbourhood have to do with global warming and pollution? You are applying back-yard science, the science of fools.
Yeah, total agree about the lying thing....such as: largest inauguration audience, 3 million illegal voters, wiretapping by former president, carrier group steaming to N Korea..... the list goes on and on! And, we are just in the first 4 month.
They say it because Apple doesn't wow anyone more because the leadership there is more concerned about what people (a small minority) think about them i.e. diverse workforce, climate responsibility, wages, ect. That's great and all...but I don't come to MR to read about politics or social experiments, I want to see what the next device is that will make daily life tasks easier.
Hey Golden Joe, have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? Because you are a fantastic example. It's obvious to me that you literally don't know the first thing about anthropogenic climate change or supercomputer models, but that apparently doesn't stop you from saying whatever you like.
This is absolutely, completely false. There are multiple levels of evidence for climate change that have convinced most atmospheric scientists (well, except for the few that mysteriously also seem to be taking cash from the oil industry, I'm sure that's got nothing to do with it though).
First of all, just the basic properties of CO2 itself. It is a very well known greenhouse gas. So if you emit GIGATONS of the stuff year after year, decade after decade, can you please explain to me how that has NO effret...?
Furthermore, supercomputer simulations have gotten EXCELLENT in recent years. Even most profession oil industry shills have stopped trying to criticize them on a scientific level.
Joe, you should really ask yourself where you get your information from. On one side of this debate is nearly all scientists. On the other side you have a FEW scientists, mostly older ones, who also happen to take cash from the oil industry. Even MORE interesting, they never seem to actually publish any research. They spend all of their time creating cute YouTube videos and blog posts. It's almost as if they're not actually interested in science at all and they only care about swaying public opinion...
Hmmmmm.....I wonder why that could be......
WOW. Now you're just completely making stuff up aren't you? The United States is NOT the "cleanest" country in the world. Not by essentially any measure.
Tell me, what particular twisted "alternative fact" did you get this little gem from?
Last edited:
A recent poll, basically an election re-do showed he'd still win again, so I would start stocking up on anti-depressants now for 2020.
[doublepost=1496337096][/doublepost]
The same prediction was made in 1970. Technically we're all either underwater or burned up from the ozone hole by 2000. The ongoing problem with climatology science is that the track record of predictions is so poor as to not be believed. In the 1970s, the same hysteria occurred with nuclear energy. Yet, we've not yet destroyed ourselves. It's a combination of deliberate ignorance by the public and also the fact that politics + science = junk science which causes unrealistic crazy predictions like yours. Trust me, posts like yours only exacerbate the situation, not help it.
By the way, I did not vote for Trump, just to note. But, I can't lie. It is enjoyable watching him make peoples head explode from frustration, derangement, and dementia.
Last edited:
It's over-exaggerated by the media and consumed by average people who don't really do any critical thinking. So to be honest, no, I'm not worried. And everyone who is ought to do a little bit of research.
Which is it, "poor and uneducated" or "rich 1% ers" (who would be folks educated enough to build and manage huge corporations and businesses), that the conservatives are? Cant have it both ways. Guess it depends on the narrative for the moment for you guys huh? Seems to me that if the conservatives were "poor and uneducated" they would advocate more for the liberal policies to get all the freebies.
THAT'S what a lot of the "knowledgeable" folks here don't seem to be able to comprehend. And China has until 2030 to do anything at all.
Correct - and they will sign it without us regardless. So China who is the main polluter does something about the problem while the US protects its jobs and does not foot the bill.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.
These comments are terrifying. I can't believe how infested this country is with idiot right wingers...
I'm a republican and am all for taking care of our planet.
That said, this Paris Agreement is not legally binding, it carries no penalties, and it sets no limits for what it aims to do. What an amazing "agreement" put forth by our United Nations body. All it amounts to is a self-congratulatory pat on the back by the world's 195+ nations.
It will also cause taxpayers of the heavy CO2 producing nations (e.g. us) to subsidize clean energy for nations that cause far less pollution. Since the US is #2 on the CO2 list at 17% overall, I'd rather see those billions of dollars invested in *our* energy infrastructure to drop that percentage, not be distributed to nations who are making 1% or less in CO2 emissions. Our R&D in clean energy methods naturally filters down to those nations anyway. No need to send billions of our taxpayer money to them.
That said, this Paris Agreement is not legally binding, it carries no penalties, and it sets no limits for what it aims to do. What an amazing "agreement" put forth by our United Nations body. All it amounts to is a self-congratulatory pat on the back by the world's 195+ nations.
It will also cause taxpayers of the heavy CO2 producing nations (e.g. us) to subsidize clean energy for nations that cause far less pollution. Since the US is #2 on the CO2 list at 17% overall, I'd rather see those billions of dollars invested in *our* energy infrastructure to drop that percentage, not be distributed to nations who are making 1% or less in CO2 emissions. Our R&D in clean energy methods naturally filters down to those nations anyway. No need to send billions of our taxpayer money to them.
Rather ironic that Apple's products are all assembled in communist China rather than capitalist America.
No they are not. The elite I speak of own the Federal Reserve. They print money out of nothing and sell it to the US government in exchange for interest, big interest, i.e. usury.
With the access of unlimited money they have bought the Beltway, the Judiciary and the White House. Beyond that they have bought up all media, which is nothing more than their propaganda apparatus. Those that don't take their money or who already are dual citizens (first and foremost loyal to Israel) are blackmailed. This is where the sickening amount of pedofilia in the establishment comes in. Honey traps of the olden day have been exchanged for pedofilia traps, run by intelligence services in order to gain control over whoever they need control over. British intelligence run the same in London.
That is the elite. Politicians and even the US president are just their pawns.
As far as the man man climate change hoax goes, it's just a tool for control and manipulation. Ultimately you will have to pay a CO2 tax for breathing. No money? Die.
And yes, these sickos, the majority of them being zionists are worshipers of Baal, or Satan. They sacrifice children, drink blood and enjoy themselves they way it's done in hell. They hate humanity and enjoy seeing it suffer.
Largest inaugural audience....who cares, they also reported that he got rid of the MLK bust that a photographer was standing in front of. Who cares? Small stuff.
3 million illegal voters.... very plausible. Without voter ID and the constant fight against it, it's very plausible.
Wiretapping by the former president is unwrapping before your very eyes, you just don't know about it because your media is still too focused on trying to find the non existing evidence of Russian Collusion. Those wiretaps were what got Flynn in trouble, and it appears Obama is under his own investigation for tapping quite a few wires right now. By the way, how does a community organizer that becomes a senator followed shortly by becoming president afford an $8.1 million dollar home on a salary of $400k per year? But I digress...
Carrier steaming North Korea? What are they steaming, carpets?
The big lies are the constant reports from "sources" unchecked, not investigated, and they just pile it on over and over, but pay no attention. This giant story about Russian collusion. They build something up, work with it, nothing comes of it, knock it down and try something else. Nobody can say what the crime is, and the investigation has not produced anything. Next up, reports are serving up the newest and biggest, "Comey is going to testify about Trump's interference 3 weeks after he testified under oath that there was no interference. So they will continue to feed the story on how they see it playing out when the reality is, if Comey testifies that Trump interfered, A. He goes to jail for perjury, B. He adds to that punishment as it is illegal to NOT report someone trying to interfere with an investigation. Next up after that?
By the way, does anyone recall the live Microphone when Obama got caught colluding with the Russians? Why wasn't there an investigation there? Augh the blatantly obvious double standard.
Repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Trump did not win a majority. He won the electoral college. Take a look at the amount of activism his unpopular positions have created.
As for the comment about the Democratic Party, you probably are referencing the Gallup poll about the Democrats being referenced by Right wing publications. You actually have to read the entire article to understand what it actually said.
"So far Trump's unpopularity as president has done little to erode Americans' views of the GOP, perhaps because they were already quite negative."
"The decline in Democratic Party favorability is mostly a result of lower ratings from self-identified Democrats. In November, 83% of Democrats had a positive opinion of the Democratic Party; now, 77% do."
"Over time, Democratic Party and Republican Party favorability have averaged 50% and 44%, respectively. Republicans have yet to enjoy a sustained period of time in which their favorable ratings significantly exceed those for the Democratic Party."
Only idiots would refute the findings and serious warnings of scientists world wide. Then again, we're talking about the extreme right wing.
One other thing, renewable energy and climate change initiatives are actually good for the economy. It will not only preserve jobs, it will create them. Again, that's probably too much for you to understand.
I can imagine it might have surprised and apparently baffled you to realise I don't know that guy, as if he was Jesus reincarnate and I somehow ought to have known about him, otherwise I would be thought of as knowing nothing. I apologise to you and to His Thielness as well.
Meanwhile, after you are done passing judgements front right and centre, the point I was making in my post was about how Cook and the guy "look" in the photo, and how that seemed and felt a little too apt a look in the circumstance of the news, is all. It had nothing to do with identifying the guy or my knowledge of anything.
So, do you want to only rip posts and words apart, or do you have/ want to say anything about my point in my post and add to the discussion?
So Apple should just shouldn't give a crap about the world around them right? They should just make stuff and shut up?
The reason we have governments that care more about their party and not the people is this cancerous attitude from people who want to escape from reality.
The stuff going on in our governments is more important than a shiny new idevice.
And BTW their wouldn't be any need for "social experiments" if a group of people didn't set themselves up as the top of the human race. Took the lions share of the world's resources and left scraps for everyone else.
Trump won a majority of that states, and the vast majority of counties. It doesn't matter how many more people voted for Hillary. There is no such thing as a popular election for President in this country.
I always find it quite peculiar how liberals espouse diversity, yet they believe that residents from a small minority of populous states and counties across the nation should control the outcome of elections, or for that matter are representative of America as a whole.
Also, all the burning, rioting, 1st Amendment silencing and foul-mouthed antics of Antifa and P*ssy Hats aren't aspiring examples of left wing activism.
Ok.
Ok, so you no longer believe that China is doing nothing under this agreement, but you see this as being purely transactional....a win/loss scenario with an opportunity to score a win. No strategic need to share global responsibility and lead. That's fine. I see it differently.
There is no doubt that many countries are behind the US in environmental technology and regulations.....just as the US was backwards in the early part of it's industrialization. Do we partner and work with these countries, or do we retreat into a cocoon of isolationism? That's really the crux of the issue. If you want to be the leader of the free world, you have to lead not hide and retreat from what is clearly a global issue.
Ok, so you no longer believe that China is doing nothing under this agreement, but you see this as being purely transactional....a win/loss scenario with an opportunity to score a win. No strategic need to share global responsibility and lead. That's fine. I see it differently.
There is no doubt that many countries are behind the US in environmental technology and regulations.....just as the US was backwards in the early part of it's industrialization. Do we partner and work with these countries, or do we retreat into a cocoon of isolationism? That's really the crux of the issue. If you want to be the leader of the free world, you have to lead not hide and retreat from what is clearly a global issue.
Oh you are really reaching with that Obama collusion hot mic. That was about a hotly debated subject (missile defense) not about negotiations across the board behind closed doors.
I personally am reserving judgement about Trump/Russia until the facts come out. But being a life long Newyorker, I can tell you the US made a horrid choice in electing trump.
I feel the same way reading through some of these responses, but... it's also a bit of a relief coming across posts like yours that show me that, yes, there are people out there who do care and aren't so self absorbed and negligent/uninformed. So that's something