Apple Reiterates Commitment to Obama Era Climate Pledge

[Meister]

Why do I need to give any more examples of politics ignoring one of the biggest threat that is facing us?

Because you claimed they were ignoring the consequences.

Now, even if you still don't "believe" that (and I hate to use that word in the context of science), I assume you do realise that climate change (natural or man made) will have huge impacts on the planet and our lives? So even if the current White House administration doesn't want to address the causes, why is it also ignoring the consequences? Ignoring scientific facts and thus jeopardizing the future of our planet, is criminal. There's no other word for it.

They aren't ignoring the consequences, they disagree with the cause.
[doublepost=1491125797][/doublepost]

Thank you for enlightening me about my own profession. It really opens my eyes. Please send me PM with your real name and contact info so I can inform the Nobel Price committee.

Your profession doesn't produce any practical results except for baseless scaremongering and doomsday predictions.
[doublepost=1491125907][/doublepost]

Give me one good reason why legislation to make cars more fuel efficient, had to go?

Because it interferes with the free market.

 

[hagar]

Because you claimed they were ignoring the consequences.

They are, proof me wrong.

They aren't ignoring the consequences, they disagree with the cause.

Even if their big brains refute anything science produced, climate change is still happening. If it's natural or not, it will still have consequences. Why aren't they dealing with those?

[doublepost=1491125797][/doublepost]Your profession doesn't produce any practical results except for baseless scaremongering and doomsday predictions.

So if an astronomer discovers a huge meteor coming for planet Earth, you will also ignore their profession and ridicule them? Because you don't like what they say?

[doublepost=1491125907][/doublepost]Because it interferes with the free market.

The free market is a means to an end, not a purpose. If there isn't any legislation to protect workers, the environment, health, etc. lots of companies go for the cheapest and easiest route, which happens to be the more harmful route. Why would car manufacturers invest in very expensive research to make cars more fuel efficient if they don't have any incentives? Competition? Yes, but that will go much much slower.

Imagine I want to start a new business, but it will create pollution on a massive scale. It's not a great product, nobody really needs it, but I have a great marketing strategy and the masses start buying it. Meanwhile, my production plants spew toxic waste. And once the hype is over, I board up everything and go to the Bahamas with my money. Thanks, free market and deregulation!

 

[thekeyring]

The climate has always been changing and always will change.
There is no evidence that climate change has anything to do with human activities.
[doublepost=1491079209][/doublepost]How is the WH ignoring the consequences climate change?

The EPA disagrees with you.

Even if you think we don't know why the planet has recently started getting warmer and warmer, the fact some people have a strong idea - doesn't that make you want to try the solution they're suggesting? I.E. stop releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

 

[Meister]

The EPA disagrees with you.

Even if you think we don't know why the planet has recently started getting warmer and warmer, the fact some people have a strong idea - doesn't that make you want to try the solution they're suggesting? I.E. stop releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

The EPA has a political agenda.
That's why Donnie is cutting their funds.
Thank god for that.
[doublepost=1491132187][/doublepost]

They are, proof me wrong.

It's your claim, you provide the proof.
[doublepost=1491132305][/doublepost]

Imagine I want to start a new business, but it will create pollution on a massive scale. It's not a great product, nobody really needs it, but I have a great marketing strategy and the masses start buying it. Meanwhile, my production plants spew toxic waste. And once the hype is over, I board up everything and go to the Bahamas with my money. Thanks, free market and deregulation!

If people care about CO2 they can choose to by fuel efficient cars.
A free market is a great example of democarcy in action.
People vote with their wallets.
[doublepost=1491132339][/doublepost]

So if an astronomer discovers a huge meteor coming for planet Earth, you will also ignore their profession and ridicule them? Because you don't like what they say?

Bad example.

 

[thekeyring]

The EPA has a political agenda.
That's why Donnie is cutting their funds.
Thank god for that.
[doublepost=1491132187][/doublepost]
It's your claim, you provide the proof.
[doublepost=1491132305][/doublepost]If people care about CO2 they can choose to by fuel efficient cars.
A free market is a great example of democarcy in action.
People vote with their wallets.
[doublepost=1491132339][/doublepost]

So do you really think the EPA and all the other scientific bodies which have said global warming is happening and humans are causing it are all wrong? You think they're all invested in solar panel manufacturers and want to profit from that?

 

[Meister]

So do you really think the EPA and all the other scientific bodies which have said global warming is happening and humans are causing it are all wrong? You think they're all invested in solar panel manufacturers and want to profit from that?

Yes, they are all full of ****.

They are funded by government entities and those government entities are politicialy motivated.
Politicians want social control and making predictions about the weather is perfect for this.
It's a blanket excuse for any censorship, regulation or tax you can come up with.
It's also the oldest trick in the book because the weather is observable and affects everyone.

 

[hagar]

The EPA has a political agenda.
That's why Donnie is cutting their funds.
Thank god for that.
[doublepost=1491132187][/doublepost]

Stop looking at politics to understand science.

It's your claim, you provide the proof.

The absence of proof does not proof its absence. That's basic science. I can't give any example. You apparently can't either.

[doublepost=1491132305][/doublepost]If people care about CO2 they can choose to by fuel efficient cars.
A free market is a great example of democarcy in action.
People vote with their wallets.

No they don't. Numerous studies have shown that people don't factor in labour conditions or environmental burden when they purchase goods. And they shouldn't have too.

[doublepost=1491132339][/doublepost]Bad example.

It's a very good example. Science teaches us and warns us about infections, disease, pollution, meteors, ... but apparently climate is the one thing you single out.

And that's fine if you could give a scientific reason. But you can't because you don't know anything about the subject.

 

[Meister]

The absence of proof does not proof its absence. That's basic science. I can't give any example. You apparently can't either.

You are arguing in a circle ...
Give an example of what other administrations have done to address the consequences of this supposed climate change.
[doublepost=1491133401][/doublepost]

Stop looking at politics to understand science.

No, thank you.
I'm not gonna ignore the obvious connection between climate science and politics.
[doublepost=1491133511][/doublepost]

It's a very good example. Science teaches us and warns us about infections, disease, pollution, meteors, ... but apparently climate is the one thing you single out.

Because scientific theories can accurately predict the outcome of the treatment of infections and diseases.
This is not true for climate science.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

Hahah the CEO of a company that creates billions of throwaway devices wants to be environmentally conscious...

Just build the ****ing desktops Tim!

 

[hagar]

You are arguing in a circle ...
Give an example of what other administrations have done to address the consequences of this supposed climate change.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue discussing with somebody like you. I have told you over and over I can't because as far as I know there aren't any. What don't you understand about that?

[doublepost=1491133401][/doublepost]
No, thank you.
I'm not gonna ignore the obvious connection between climate science and politics.

Numerous religious people in power and politicians have questioned the existence of HIV/AIDS because it doesn't fit their agenda. Even today many people believe them, risking their lives. What you do is exactly the same. It's plane ignorance.

[doublepost=1491133511][/doublepost]Because scientific theories can accurately predict the outcome of the treatment of infections and diseases.
This is not true for climate science.

Again. Not true. There are cases a treatment of infection that fail for whatever reason we don't understand yet. Do doctors then come to the conclusion the infection didn't exist in the first place? No.

 

[Meister]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue discussing with somebody like you. I have told you over and over I can't because as far as I know there aren't any. What don't you understand about that?

lol
that's my point. there aren't any.
the obama administration hasn't done anything to deal with the consequences of this climate change either.
why should trump?
[doublepost=1491135793][/doublepost]

Again. Not true. There are cases a treatment of infection that fail for whatever reason we don't understand yet. Do doctors then come to the conclusion the infection didn't exist in the first place? No.

We don't come to the conclusion they do not exist but we doubt their cause.

 

[thekeyring]

Hahah the CEO of a company that creates billions of throwaway devices wants to be environmentally conscious...

Just build the ****ing desktops Tim!

Half a good argument there. But as usual with criticism of Tim Cook, it ignores facts. Like the fact anyone can drop their old device into an Apple store so that Apple can recycle it.
[doublepost=1491135955][/doublepost]

Yes, they are all full of ****.

They are funded by government entities and those government entities are politicialy motivated.
Politicians want social control and making predictions about the weather is perfect for this.
It's a blanket excuse for any censorship, regulation or tax you can come up with.
It's also the oldest trick in the book because the weather is observable and affects everyone.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[s2mikey]

Yes, they are all full of ****.

They are funded by government entities and those government entities are politicialy motivated.
Politicians want social control and making predictions about the weather is perfect for this.
It's a blanket excuse for any censorship, regulation or tax you can come up with.
It's also the oldest trick in the book because the weather is observable and affects everyone.

Well said. The entire climate change agenda is just another push to transfer wealth and power to self righteous elites. It's dodgy science at best, there are numerous inconsistencies in their findings, and as always it is the middle and working classes that will suffer the most if draconian rules and regulations get jammed down our throats. Eff that. Get off my back. I'm not destroying my standard of living and happiness because of some BS agenda.

Like I've said a zillion times....as soon as Al Gore, the Hollywood elite and other rich left wingers get rid of ALL their toys and mansions, come and talk to me. Until then? Suck it.

 

[hagar]

lol
that's my point. there aren't any.
the obama administration hasn't done anything to deal with the consequences of this climate change either.
why should trump?

i thought trump only wanted to do the opposite of Obama?

[doublepost=1491135793][/doublepost]We don't come to the conclusion they do not exist but we doubt their cause.

No. We don't. We find other cures.
You'd be a lousy doctor.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

Half a good argument there. But as usual with criticism of Tim Cook, it ignores facts. Like the fact anyone can drop their old device into an Apple store so that Apple can recycle it.

Recycling and creating the gadget create environmental impacts, if they built their business around devices that last 3-4 years it would have a bigger impact. Right now when they do release hardware it's underpowered and should have been replaced a year ago already.

 

[Meister]

i thought trump only wanted to do the opposite of Obama?

You wrote:

So even if the current White House administration doesn't want to address the causes, why is it also ignoring the consequences?

What consequences? What did Barry do to address them?

 

[thekeyring]

Recycling and creating the gadget create environmental impacts, if they built their business around devices that last 3-4 years it would have a bigger impact. Right now when they do release hardware it's underpowered and should have been replaced a year ago already.

I don't think that's true of iOS devices, is it? The A series processors are state of the art. My iPhone 6S will last me 3 years easily. Plus, Apple are aiming to move their worldwide operations to completely carbon neutral, and to build their products out of recyclable materials.

I can never tell with Macs, because I don't follow Intel very closely.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't think that's true of iOS devices, is it? The A series processors are state of the art. My iPhone 6S will last me 3 years easily. Plus, Apple are aiming to move their worldwide operations to completely carbon neutral, and to build their products out of recyclable materials.

I can never tell with Macs, because I don't follow Intel very closely.

It's not so much that iOS devices are underpowered but they are in the game of getting you to refresh every year, desktops/laptops was more what I was talking about though, they release underwhelming hardware compared to what is on the market today and it causes people to have to upgrade more often (if they rev their products)

 

[sers]

The hypocrisy of these companies is amazing. What about the hypocrisy of that clown called Trump?

I live in Canada, so Trump isn't our president/PM. However, Trump has done more for the Canadian economy by approving Keystone XL than our clown of a PM ever has or will.

 

[Meister]

I live in Canada, so Trump isn't our president/PM. However, Trump has done more for the Canadian economy by approving Keystone XL than our clown of a PM ever has or will.

He did make the national anthem "gender neutral".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ional-anthem-lyrics-gender-neutral-parliament

Because that's not ******* crazy.

 

[d0nK]

Since when is aggressive planned obsolescence and anti-user maintenance green in any way whatsoever?
This is just virtue signalling, political garbage.

 

[thekeyring]

It's not so much that iOS devices are underpowered but they are in the game of getting you to refresh every year, desktops/laptops was more what I was talking about though, they release underwhelming hardware compared to what is on the market today and it causes people to have to upgrade more often (if they rev their products)

I can see why you might think this, but honestly their Macs seem to last so well that friends of mine (people who needed laptops, not just are interested in consumer electronics) are still on Macs they got in 2010. My Dad bought a Mac mini in 2009 and recently replaced it - that's 7 years old. Way longer than any PC he had before he switched. The small company I work for uses the 2013 Mac Pros - and while I'm not arguing the Mac Pros don't need updating from Apple, we don't need to buy new machines. Not even close.

So in theory, I can see your point of view, but from my anecdotal evidence, users across the board are getting really good milage from their Apple devices. It would be interesting to see actual data from a large set of people, though.

 

[star-affinity]

Edit: Never mind. I just did a lookup on the validity of skeptical science website, and it appears it is not a legit source for science itself. Thanks though.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position."

That same quote could be used the other way around for many who's questioning man-made global warming.

Maybe read some on this site instead of WUWT: https://wottsupwiththat.com/about/

”This web site will be a response to wattsupwiththat.com, an anti-science web site operated by amateur climatology critic Anthony Watts and his associates. We consider his web site a prominent and monotonous source of misinformation and misrepresentation of the science and physical evidence that relates to the human contribution toward Climate Change, also called Anthropogenic Global Warming or “AGW”.

The extraordinary volume of reflexively supportive comments at “Watts Up With That?” drown out any intelligent responses except to the most diligent and open-minded readers. This wall of noise, combined with Anthony and his associate’s willingness to block or destructively edit criticism and on occasion subtly threaten critics means that their biased and deceptive posts may appear unchallenged and hence possibly correct. This is rarely true.”

And this: Debunking Another Climate Change Crock: What’s Up with Anthony Watts?

To my knowledge the material on the Sceptical Science site correlates well what the climate science says. If climate science isn't a good source when it comes to climate science can you please give the most objective source for learning about climate change on our planet? Also please motivate why you think it's a good source.

 

[citizenzen]

Edit: Never mind. I just did a lookup on the validity of skeptical science website, and it appears it is not a legit source for science itself. Thanks though.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position."

Well I just looked up the validity of populartechnology.net, and it turns out it's a climate denial site.

Despite Claims to the Contrary, Populartechnology.net Is a Denier Site

... the thinly-veiled denier site populartechnology.net posted an update to its attempted takedown of the pro-AGW consensus findings of studies like Oreskes 2004, and Cook et al 2013.

A few members of the scientific community apparently sung the praises of what the site admits is not a scientifically-rigorous effort but merely a cherry-picked list of papers it really, really likes ...

http://whac-a-troll.blogspot.com/2014/09/despite-claims-to-contrary.html

Using websites to invalidate other websites. Navel gazing at it's finest. Now if someone could just find a site that invalidates whac-a-troll.blogspot.com, the circle of life will be complete.

 

[tshrimp]

Well I just looked up the validity of populartechnology.net, and it turns out it's a climate denial site.

Then you can use google and look up his posted website. It was just the first one that came up when looking at the sites validity. There were many more if you don't like that one.