Apple Resigns from U.S. Chamber of Commerce [political discussion]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Doctor Q, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    This is the thread for political discussion about the issue of climate change as it relates to the Apple Resigns from U.S. Chamber of Commerce over Climate Change Stance news story. Posts about the controversial issue of climate change should be made here rather than in the News forum discussion thread.

    Note that only forum members with a history of 100 counted posts can post in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

    All opinions are welcome but they must be expressed with the terms of the forum rules. Non-political discussion is welcome in the parallel thread in the News forum.

    Thank you for your cooperation.
     
  2. The Samurai macrumors 68000

    The Samurai

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #2
    Green peace must be wetting themselves over this news.
     
  3. crees! macrumors 68000

    crees!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    MD/VA/DC
    #3
    20 years ago it was global cooling. The planet is freezing. Now it's global warming. Since we've caught on to their plan of deception the subject has been changed to "climate change". Al Gore needs to look up and see there is something called the Sun, and what degree the Earth's axis is, etc.. before we're all bankrupt.
     
  4. mambodancer macrumors 6502

    mambodancer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    I am afraid you are wrong about your facts. For a recent article on this subject, please read the current issue of the Skeptical Enquirer. The scientific literature of 20 years ago did not, in fact, support global cooling. Just the opposite.
     
  5. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #5
    Apple, although I love the company, hasn't always been the greenest of companies and I do believe it is part of their marketing campaign.

    Asus scored much higher on EPA ratings, Dell and HP's averages were brought down slightly because they had so many different levels of offerings. They still had many gold stars.
     
  6. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    As would we all. However, the gas that plants need to survive and that humans expel and inhale, otherwise know as carbon dioxide, is not toxic or unclean. Additionally, the Earth is actually currently cooling, and may continue to do so for the next 1-2 decades.
     
  7. paduck macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    #7
    Climate change is not a "controversial social issue." It is a "controversial political issue." It might be called a "controversial scientific issue," although the science (based on the official position of the USG) is relatively well established.

    A "controversial social issue" is something like abortion rights, gay rights/marriage, and prayer in school.
     
  8. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #8
    So wait, discussion of a scientific issue here at MR is now political? Haven't us skeptics been saying this on the issue the whole time? :rolleyes:

    Well, might as well engage in the politics. There never was any science to man-made global warming. The goal has always been to bypass the science and get straight to the politics, exacting laws regulating carbon dioxide while covering our ears and saying "there is no debate". And when nearly every climate scientist has a conflict of interest, and would be financially disadvantages were man-made global warming proven wrong, it's clear why things are as they are.
     
  9. Redneck1089 macrumors 65816

    Redneck1089

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #9
    Still waiting for proof of GW. What a crock. Whatever helps everyone sleep at night.
     
  10. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #10
    I oppose this decision, just as I opposed Apple's support of Prop 8. Global warming has not yet been resolved scientifically, and the Chamber of Commerce correctly recognizes how much damage it would do to U.S. companies were legislation enacted.
     
  11. Redneck1089 macrumors 65816

    Redneck1089

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #11
    Thank you. Finally someone who really evaluates the situation, instead of everyone else in here praising Apple for something that elicits an emotional response as opposed to rational observation of scientific data.
     
  12. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #12
    It appears that opposing Apple at MR for this issue is political, but praising it is not. Explanation by mods, please? I tend to ignore the PRSI forum here at MR because liberals outnumber conservatives 20:1, and no meaningful discussion can be had. I felt my statement opposing Apple's decision was about as nonpolitical as you can get.
     
  13. Redneck1089 macrumors 65816

    Redneck1089

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #13
    I guess you thought wrong. I guess the mods are part of that majority...
     
  14. Detlev macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    #14
    And there never will be. Not because there is a lack of evidence but because "science" today is no longer a pure practice. It is a profit making industry in and of itself and therefore not immune to the corruptions of success so commonly reserved for other industries.

    Where is the evidence that this was the initial goal? I believe this would have taken a much different road if it had been established as such. I would also argue that it is obvious that conflicts of interest are prevalent on all sides of the debate and that perhaps truth is somewhere standing on the sideline.
     
  15. Doctor Q thread starter Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    Would contrived examples help?
    "Brilliant political move for Apple. " <-- ok in either thread
    "Stupid decision by Apple, caving to special interests." <--- ok in either thread
    "The planet is getting warmer and we have to fix it." <--- ok only in this thread
    "Climate change legislation is unwarranted." <--- ok only in this thread​

    MacRumors has no opinion on this issue and does not moderate to promote or suppress opinions. If you are not sure whether your post is about climate change or about Apple's business moves, post in this thread.

    If political discussions are one-sided in this forum due to the composition of our membership then political discussions in news threads would be similarly one-sided, for the same reason. We've separated specific political discussions from news stories before. Our regular members can still participate in either or both thread but this keeps the hit-and-run trolls out of the main news discussion, for the benefit of both members and site visitors reading the news story.
     
  16. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #16
    You mean opposition of prop 8, right? Yes meant you were against gay marriage. If Apple were pro prop 8, I have some thinking to do about my next laptop purchase!
     
  17. powers74 macrumors 68000

    powers74

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Location:
    At the bend in the river
    #17
    politics

    Good job I just hit 6092 or whatever, otherwise I guess I'd be locked out of the elite discussion.

    Anyway, as others have pointed out I love how the praise for Apple page gets the spotlight and the real debate gets tossed into a corner where only MR "6492"s & up are eligible to participate. Interesting.

    Anyway, this says it all:

    I am just as supportive of taking care of our planet as anyone, but the Global Warming - err "Climate Change" nonsense is just a bunch of political BS that amounts to nothing more than new tax legislation and government control.

    I firmly believe that there is enough awareness of the need for global environmental stewardship in the public mind that progress will be made in grand time. There is no legislation that any government can pass that will hasten this process. On the contrary, it is likely to stifle innovation and progress - especially in the long run (it might seem to do a lot of good in the first couple years) - and cause more detriment than benefit. All the while taxing trade to the point businesses cannot make a profit.
     
  18. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #18
  19. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #19
    Finally someone with enough sense to see through what I consider nothing more than a political PR stunt.
    Watch the stock prices kids.
     
  20. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #20
    I clicked on this topic to see how long the "global warming is made up" would take to start. First reply!

    Maybe it's because conservatives can't put forward a decent argument other than "socialism!"/"teh gays will get us"/"I herds it on Fox news".

    Your avatar makes me smile though :)
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    I am actually fairly surprised, usually its 1 person against 15 on here. :eek: I am a fence sitter on climate change, give me more data I am not yet convinced. Also I want to wait another decade to see where we are at.

    Either way I think this is another way for Apple to cut its way into the "green" sector. Awesome for PR these days.
     
  22. tofagerl macrumors 6502a

    tofagerl

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #22
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    If you're looking for an organization that combines business with good citizenship, don't look to your nearby Chamber of Commerce. When government gets in bed with corporate interests, the Chamber of Commerce is what typically gets 'em a room at hourly rates. (They also put the quarters in the vibrating bed, but that's another story.)

    I also can't help but notice how quickly this guy's claim, that global warming is on temporary hiatus, is being turned into "there is no global warming." I'm so glad everyone here knows more than the scientific community. I'm also glad you realize that the scientific community is corrupted by profit motive, whereas the corporate community is obviously not. :rolleyes:

    Based on what is in the article, I applaud the move by Apple.
     
  24. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #24
    Apple is so full of...

    For example... what releases less CO2 into the air per pound of cargo?
    a. container ship from China
    b. cargo jet from China?

    If you picked A, give yourself a star!

    Now, what method did I get my last shipment from Apple? Yep, Cargo jet from China, to Alaska to the central United States.

    Oh, and if Apple is so concerned about gases...then why do they have their CEO fly around in a private jet to all parts of the globe, when a passenger jet is far less wasteful, relative to the amount of materials it contains.

    Personally, my opinion is that any changes that man makes is small, and the change we might be seeing are from normal processes of the Earth. If Apple wants to fly jets around and be wasteful.. that is their choice. However, to claim they 'care', yet do activities that counter their alleged concern is BS.


    I'm sure the mine-numbed people out there will give this threat a positive click, without doing a thimble-full of critical thinking .
     
  25. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    Do you realize that the article you linked to deliberately misrepresents the presentation by Prof. Mojib Latif? The referenced study he worked on posits that:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

    Anyone thinking that his presentation is evidence against climate change and the overall trend of warming simply a) hasn't actually looked at the study and/or b) doesn't understand it.
     

Share This Page