Yes there is. LOL, seriously studied - as in ones that agree with you.
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 Reiterates Commitment to Obama Era Climate Pledge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure that theory earned you a PhD.
Or perhaps he makes these investments because he is genuinely convinced of the cause? And what about all those polititcians who only deny the science because they are in the (much deeper) pocket of the oil industry?
No. The scientific consensus on climate change is as strong as it gets.
Yeah. It's the age of Trump, where knowledge and scientific methodology are insults and populist gut feeling rules.
The reason climate change deniers think it is a sham, not willing to accept responsibility for their actions. Much easier to say, not my fault and I cannot change it anyway, "it is as it always been". My position, we cleanup the messes we make. The Earth can handle its messes just fine. If we dump tons of junk in the air, water and land, clean it up. If clean energy is not the answer, then move on and find other solutions that work better. I commend Apple and others for at least making efforts in reducing polution across a broad spectrum. What will not work, following climate change deniers solution of sticking head in sand and waiting to see what happens. Cleanup the messes we make, and we will leave a liveable Earth for the next generations.
Last edited:
Want a demonstration of how wrong you are? What planet is the hottest in the solar system? Mercury is closest to the sun... but it isnt' the hottest... not by a wide margin. Venus has a nice thick CO2 atmosphere and it holds in heat so well that it melts lead. That is what atmospheric CO2 does. Earth might have followed Venus except much of the carbon was locked away in the ground.
There are greedy people on both sides of the fence on this issue. Period.
It seems clear that you're on Al Gore's side on this debate. I think anyone who goes from having 2M in assets to having 100M in assets in 11 years as a green energy investor (as Al Gore did) should expect to have their motives scrutinized.
Look no farther than the stimulus spending during Obama's first term.
There were several "green energy" companies that took federal money and subsequently went bankrupt. The US taxpayer lost billions. And, if you look behind the corporate names, you would find many Democrat donors.
I don't disagree that a lot of people have a financial stake in "climate change". But, it's not accurate to say that it's only on one side.
Thanks for your opinion. So I guess your scientific research has brought you to this conclusion?
No we are not! There is no dispute. Climate scientists have come to the conclusion years ago that our climate is changing and that natural causes alone cannot explain what we are seeing. Period.
The dispute is in political circles, because the solution (cutting back on emissions) goes against their agenda. So they introduced uncertainty and doubt. With success.
So no. THERE IS NO DISPUTE. The science is there, the data is there. There is no doubt. The only doubt you will here is from politicians who have their own agenda.
This along with pushing creationism in schools is a war on Science and that's frightening.
Without Science we're doomed, literally.
I've come to realize that every agenda is backed by $$$$.
Reduce healthcare, roll back privacy, roll back environment protections, privatize schools. All of it is to make money.
They can't make money by helping the poor.
Without Science we're doomed, literally.
I've come to realize that every agenda is backed by $$$$.
Reduce healthcare, roll back privacy, roll back environment protections, privatize schools. All of it is to make money.
They can't make money by helping the poor.
Personally, even if climate change were proven to be beyond our control, I would still support clean rivers, less pollution, and breathable air.
There is a lot more greed and vested interest on one side than the other.
I don't give a **** about Al Gore and have no idea why you even bring him into this discussion. But anyway, from what I know, the vast majority of his money came from the sale of Current TV, hedge fund investments and various lucrative advisory and corporate positions (including on Apple's board of directors).
Apple has a long distinguished history of conservation. Just look at their iMac line. It's approaching two years since an update, compelling users to hold on to products for longer periods which keeps toxic materials out of landfills and the manufacture of new hardware at a minimum.
What is Tim's carbon foot print from his manufacturing and assembly facilities in China? Great to brag about your office in California, what about manufacturing?
If Apple moved all manufacturing to the US, I wonder if Tim would be singing a different song.
If Apple moved all manufacturing to the US, I wonder if Tim would be singing a different song.
Let me judge your entire character by 1 bad thing you've done in your life.
Again, educate yourself instead of using platitudes. While 1 degree Celsius might not be a lot in your living room, it is a huge deal for the planet as a whole. The climate of a planet is a very complex ecosystem in itself, and as a natural process it will always try to find an equilibrium. It so happens that our current equilibrium is ideal for our plants, animals and us. (or to be precise: we adapted to the climate). Now, if the temperature and energy in the atmosphere keeps rising and cannot escape due to the human induced greenhouse effect, that equilibrium will shift. And local weather will dramatically change as a consequence.
Some regions will win, some regions will loose. It's already certain that third world countries will loose, because they can't adapt. Same holds for many animal and plants. They are already under a lot of stress (hunting, poaching, loss and fragmentation of habitat, ...) that this might well be the final straw that pushes them over the edge. So loss of diversity.
But there are even bigger issues: sea level rising, coastal erosion, island states disappearing, climate change fugitives, crop failures, the North Atlantic current stopping, Greenland ice melting, ...
So yes, 1 degrees is a lot. 2 degrees is too much.
The question remains: even if you're still in doubt and don't believe the experts: why risk it?? Why wait until we are 100% certain instead of 99.9%?
It's appalling. Now I know why the GOP wants to take money away from public schools. Create an army of future supporters.
Interesting that conservatives aren't interested in conserving the planet.
The reason why the Trump policy makes sense is the Obama policy unilaterally makes domestic firms less competitive as compared to gross polluters in China and other developing countries. The Trump policy does not preclude domestic firms from being eco-friendly and the proposed tax policy will allow IMMEDIATE EXPENSING of eco-friendly equipment, services, and R&D. Major deal, different approach. Less prescriptive, more incentivized.
In fact, the loan program you are talking about produced a profit for the tax payer:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit
A few startups (such as Solyndra) failed, but more were successful and paid back the loans with interest.
It's vastly tilted to one side.
No, he wouldn't and he shouldn't. Stop thinking economy versus ecology. It's not one versus the other. A lot of business people have already understood this and no doubt they will become the most successful entrepreneurs of the future.
But what we do need: strong regulations to level the playing field. To make sure everybody produces by the same high standards. The worst thing that can be done is deregulations, and unfortunately that's exactly what this administration is doing. Short term thinking.
Not according to the GAO:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-438
As of November 2014, DOE estimates the credit subsidy cost of the loans and loan guarantees in its portfolio—that is, the total expected net cost over the life of the loans—to be $2.21 billion, including $807 million for loans that have defaulted.