Tim Cook Angrily Rejects Political Proposal Asking for Profits-First Policies

[citizenzen]

The sky is falling!!

No. Once again you choose to engage in hyperbole instead of rational and reasoned discussion.

I'd suggest you could do better.

But I have some doubts.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

When the climate changes in your area, do you get sick? allergies? Change of atmospheric pressure affect you?

You would be lying if you said "no" to any of these questions. When a change in climate happens, do not other illnesses go up in your area? Flu?

When you are affected by those, do you not seek medical attention, even in the form of OTC medications? If so, then you're damn right that the American Medical Association knows something about climate change, because your bloody health is affected by climate change.

Like I've told you many times before, and I'll say it again:

You don't have a bloody idea what you are talking about.

BL.

Ah yes, you and your bloody minded thinking. Too bad it doesn't help you respond correctly.

The AMA didn't provide their support to the AGW consensus based on the health impacts from global warming. Oh no! They made their support based on the climate theory of AGW:

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

You really should read everything before popping off.

----------

No. Once again you choose to engage in hyperbole instead of rational and reasoned discussion.

I'd suggest you could do better.

But I have some doubts.

So you have nothing. I did provide a stunning response to your previous post.

So let's move on, shall we?

 

[alephnull12]

I like how they call it a "the theory of so-called climate change". What's next, the "the theory of so-called gravity"?

On the other hand, it would never occur to a scientist to invoke a "consensus" to state that objects fall / accelerate in a gravitational field.


In the words of Michael Crichton... "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

".. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Another great scientist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You said "Given your reverence for consensus in place of factual evidence ..."

This is consensus grounded in factual evidence.

Thus not a logical fallacy.

As I've repeatedly shown, AGW alarmists, since at least 1988, have made predictions based on their computer models and AGW theory that were ridiculously incorrect. Heck, they could have thrown darts and gotten more reliable results!

So when the American Medical Association joins the consensus, they're doing so regardless of the factual evidence. And when the AGW Faithful try to shut skeptics down by citing the so-called "consensus" they're also ignoring the facts.

 

[MattInOz]

On the other hand, it would never occur to a scientist to invoke a "consensus" to state that objects fall / accelerate in a gravitational field.


In the words of Michael Crichton... "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

".. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Another great scientist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

He's wrong, science does take at least two people. One to research, discover, write up and determine a method to prove the discovery. At least one other to peer-review and follow the method and be of consensus that finding is supported and repeatable.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

He's wrong, science does take at least two people. One to research, discover, write up and determine a method to prove the discovery. At least one other to peer-review and follow the method and be of consensus that finding is supported and repeatable.

I can't tell if you're joking. Einstein wrote about 300 papers (some of which were written during his "miracle year" in 1905), only one of those articles was peer reviewed.

 

[bradl]

Ah yes, you and your bloody minded thinking. Too bad it doesn't help you respond correctly.

The AMA didn't provide their support to the AGW consensus based on the health impacts from global warming. Oh no! They made their support based on the climate theory of AGW:

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

You really should read everything before popping off.

----------



So you have nothing. I did provide a stunning response to your previous post.

So let's move on, shall we?

Again, wrong as usual.

http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaph3i08-summary.pdf

As also reported by medical publications, such as MedPage Today:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/25052

And corroborated by the Australian Medical Association:
https://ama.com.au/position-statement/climate-change-and-human-health-2004-revised-2008

I say again: You don't have a bloody clue about what you are talking about.

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Again, wrong as usual.

http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaph3i08-summary.pdf

As also reported by medical publications, such as MedPage Today:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/25052

And corroborated by the Australian Medical Association:
https://ama.com.au/position-statement/climate-change-and-human-health-2004-revised-2008

I say again: You don't have a bloody clue about what you are talking about.

BL.

The AMA is not an organization that studies climate science. They said they were joining the consensus based on AGW theory, not any medical theory.

I really don't care to continue batting this back and forth. If you can't manage to produce some quotes that actually show I'm incorrect (not simply links to multi-page docs), I'm done with you.

 

[bradl]

The AMA is not an organization that studies climate science. They said they were joining the consensus based on AGW theory, not any medical theory.

I really don't care to continue batting this back and forth. If you can't manage to produce some quotes that actually show I'm incorrect (not simply links to multi-page docs), I'm done with you.

So now you backtrack when presented with evidence that refuses your stance, taking your toys and going home.

But I digress: you challenged me to come up with quotes. here you go. From their own PDF:
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaph3i08-summary.pdf

Conclusions. Ongoing global climate change is now widely accepted by the majority of scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists, and human activity is accelerating this process. The extent of climate change will depend on many factors; most notably, changes in global greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic contributions to global climate change exist, and the IPCC reports make a compelling case for linkage between these events. The effects of global climate change may be widespread, with impacts on ecosystems, land composition, sea levels, weather patterns, and ice coverage. The potential exists for devastating events with serious health implications, including extreme heat and cold events, flooding and droughts, increases in vectors carrying infectious diseases, and increases in air pollution. The health effects from these events should be of concern to the medical community and require action.

Our American Medical Association (AMA):

1. Support the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant. These climate changes will create conditions that affect public health, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and the poor. (New HOD Policy)
2. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change and incorporating the health implications of climate change into the spectrum of medical education, including topics such as population displacement, heat waves and drought, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and potable water supplies. (New HOD Policy)
3. (a) Recognize the importance of physician involvement in policymaking at the state, national, and global level and supports efforts to search for novel, comprehensive approaches to mitigating climate change to protect the health of the public; and (b) recognize that whatever the etiology of global climate change, policymakers should work to reduce human contributions to such changes. (New HOD Policy)
4. Encourage physicians to assist in educating patients and the public on environmentally sustainable practices, and to serve as role models for promoting environmental sustainability. (Directive to Take Action)
5. Encourage physicians to work with local and state health departments to strengthen the public health infrastructure to ensure that the global health effects of climate change can be anticipated and responded to more efficiently, and that the AMA’s Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response assist in this effort. (Directive to Take Action)
6. Support epidemiological, translational, clinical and basic science research necessary for evidence-based global climate change policy decisions related to health care and treatment. (New HOD Policy)

I would say that you should consider yourself educated, but you're way too far gone down the road of your misguided ideology to warrant that. But there is always a chance that you'll come around. Granted, it may take climate to actually affect you, but we won't be around to tell you "I told you so." Instead, we'll be asking why you didn't help us out when there was a chance; you'd only have yourself to blame when the worst does happen, and you did nothing to stop it.

BL.

 

[citizenzen]

I did provide a stunning response to your previous post.

No. Not even close.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

That is exactly correct.

But that's the reason why there has needed to be a consensus on this issue, to move politicians to make difficult decisions to address the problem ... something they still haven't done.

If Global Warming were a mere scientific curiosity, without tangible effect on our daily lives, there'd be no need for consensus. But since we are dealing with an phenomenon that will impact our lives and the lives of many generations to follow, consensus is necessary to drive political action.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You just keep missing the point. The AMA is not able to verify AGW theory, they simply note that so many other people are on the AGW bandwagon that it must be correct. And then they extrapolate what those scary IPCC predictions would mean to people's health...if they were accurate!

They haven't been accurate, so the AMA got suckered into joining the "Consensus" and now they have egg on their face too.

----------

No. Not even close.

Excuse my snickering at you, but you weren't able to refute anything I posted. You really should just move on.

 

[bradl]

You just keep missing the point. The AMA is not able to verify AGW theory, they simply note that so many other people are on the AGW bandwagon that it must be correct. And then they extrapolate what those scary IPCC predictions would mean to people's health...if they were accurate!

They haven't been accurate, so the AMA got suckered into joining the "Consensus" and now they have egg on their face too.

Proof that you didn't read a single thing I posted. Practice what you preach.

Again, from their PDF:

Objective. To review the current scientific information on climate change, discuss some predicted health effects facing various populations as a result of global climate change and modified weather patterns, and offer new policy recommendations for our American Medical Association.

Methods. Sentinel reports on climate, global climate change, and human health were relied on for the majority of this report, including the four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, and reports from the World Health Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additional English-language articles were selected based on their relevance to enhancing the scientific understanding of global climate change and related health effects on humans, and to identify gaps in knowledge, including information on climate modeling.

If you refuse to read the sources provided and continue with your now falsely proven stance, that would be considered trolling, and will be reported.

Now please either continue the debate with the sources referenced, or do not participate.

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Proof that you didn't read a single thing I posted. Practice what you preach.

Again, from their PDF:



If you refuse to read the sources provided and continue with your now falsely proven stance, that would be considered trolling, and will be reported.

Now please either continue the debate with the sources referenced, or do not participate.

BL.

One more time: the AMA is not able to verify AGW theory. They rely on what the IPCC tells them. That's the same thing as if the American Bakers Association joined the consensus. But nobody would take it seriously if a bunch of bakers agreed with the IPCC because bakers aren't climate scientists. Neither are members of the AMA. They trusted the IPCC and it burned them.

Yet again: Consensus means nothing when it comes to science.

What the AMA should have done was not join the consensus on the basis of climate science. They should have remained independent and said that if the IPCC was correct, the impacts on health could be expected to be....

But they wanted to be on that bandwagon.

 

[citizenzen]

Excuse my snickering at you, but you weren't able to refute anything I posted. You really should just move on.

I'm quite content to leave you with your hyperbolic misconceptions.

If anyone else is interested in countering it, that will be up to them.

There is only so much interest I have in trying to debate a climate change denier.

Been there ... done that ... never saw anything worthwhile come of it.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

I'm quite content to leave you with your hyperbolic misconceptions.

If anyone else is interested in countering it, that will be up to them.

There is only so much interest I have in trying to debate a climate change denier.

Been there ... done that ... never saw anything worthwhile come of it.

I hope your faith in AGW keeps you warm and cozy.

Ta!

 

[ElectronGuru]

To right...

They are protecting old money, that is their Long-term aim. Apple, Google and the whole tech industry is very much new money. If new money put cash, skills and time into new energy they are a massive threat. An energy independent Apple doesn't need their products. It's not so much about any moral stand it's about curbing new moneys ability to threaten their business.

They want to keep new money on a short leach.

Takes 300 posts before someone explains the motivation behind all this. I'm not sure it was even noticed, but well done.

 

[bradl]

One more time: the AMA is not able to verify AGW theory. They rely on what the IPCC tells them. That's the same thing as if the American Bakers Association joined the consensus. But nobody would take it seriously if a bunch of bakers agreed with the IPCC because bakers aren't climate scientists. Neither are members of the AMA. They trusted the IPCC and it burned them.

Yet again: Consensus means nothing when it comes to science.

What the AMA should have done was not join the consensus on the basis of climate science. They should have remained independent and said that if the IPCC was correct, the impacts on health could be expected to be....

But they wanted to be on that bandwagon.

The World Health Organization =/= the IPCC or AGW. The AMA went to (and let me make this very clear for you) MULTIPLE SOURCES in their research to come to their conclusion. They went to:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
World Health Organization.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Council on Science and Public Health

Four different entities that you didn't even address. That tells me that you:

1. didn't read a bloody thing I posted, though you accuse me of not reading anything you posted, which I did,
2. refuse to provide sources that prove that the AMA's stance is bunk, and
3. continue with your unfounded stance that what they say is wrong.

So I'll be more blunt: I've shown my hand, which is a full house, kings high (which could be aces high if I also bring in the NZMA's stance as well). Put up your evidence, sources included, that shows a royal flush, or again be reported for that T word.

BL.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I'm sorry. WHAT? They make these things to make profits. These products were pursued because they are highly profitable. Don't act like Apple made the iPhone and didn't expect it to be a gold mine. If it weren't for the iPhone and iPad, Apple probably wouldn't exist anymore.

Read it again....notice I said ONLY...and next time make sure you understand the post before responding to it. I never said anything about Apple not wanting to make profit.

The iPhone and the iPad were both high risk products that Apple just wanted to release because they thought the devices were amazing and they align with Apple's philosophy. They hoped to make a profit.

If profit is always the ONLY thing on your mind, then you are less likely to take big risks like both the iPhone and iPad....and you are less likely to spend money on the research and development that goes into these products which is widely considered to be a sunk cost.

 

[Poisednoise]

Can you tell me if anal retentive is hyphenated?

Can you explain the relevance of the question? I would imagine it should be, yes.
For someone who was threatening to report a poster for "trolling" earlier on, simply because they had posted a link you disagreed with, I would suggest you're sailing very close to the wind.

As for your argument that the Met Office "makes it clear that" global warming has not paused, it is incorrect.

The Met Office acknowledges that, by the standard that's been used up to now to show that global warming was underway, i.e., the surface temperatures, temperatures have been flat for 15 years.

Then they proceed to tap-dance between raindrops trying to act as if the last 15 years haven't come as a total shock to AGW alarmists.

Your language and attitude make it very clear that you're not capable of rational argument. Given the subject of this thread isn't even meant to be climate change, I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Those same scientists that, in the 70's said we were heading for an ice age?

How do we/they explain the previous times in Earth's history when we were warmer than now without human involvement?

How do they explain the effects of the Sun and the Earth's not exact rotation around the Sun that also affect climate?

How about addressing the single biggest thereat to the planet - exploding population. The Earth can barely support the current level of Humans. How to address de-population?

How can 130 some years predict climate when the Earth is billions of years old?

How do they explain the "cooking of the books" that went on a couple years ago.

When you get anyone chasing free money they will skew the data to get more of that money.

Do you really think if they examined "climate change" and came out that man had no effect they would still be employed?

You are still missing the point. They are qualified to speak on the matter. You are not qualified to speak on the matter. I'd take a scientists word over yours any day of the week.

 

[MattInOz]

I can't tell if you're joking. Einstein wrote about 300 papers (some of which were written during his "miracle year" in 1905), only one of those articles was peer reviewed.

Yes "formal peer-review" as per your link was the invention of journals taking load or pressure off the editors . By referring to it as "formal peer review" they acknowledge that review and consensus was already part of the process. It was such a key reason to the publishing and the value of their product that they needed to formalize the process to enhance the product.

That only possible because the intent of the scientific writing style was always to transfer knowledge by giving the reader the information they need to follow, test and concur.

So is it really scientific knowledge before it's been verified and the reader(s) has come to consensus?

To me the answer is a clear no, science is a process to create consensus and from that reliable knowledge.

 

[Grey Beard]

Your language and attitude make it very clear that you're not capable of rational argument. Given the subject of this thread isn't even meant to be climate change, I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion.

I do believe that despite the repetition to an anally-retentive degree, his argument has been done to death.

I rummaged in the effects folder and came up with a previously used image. However it is still as relevant today as it was many months ago.

KGB

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

The World Health Organization =/= the IPCC or AGW. The AMA went to (and let me make this very clear for you) MULTIPLE SOURCES in their research to come to their conclusion. They went to:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
World Health Organization.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Council on Science and Public Health

Four different entities that you didn't even address. That tells me that you:

1. didn't read a bloody thing I posted, though you accuse me of not reading anything you posted, which I did,
2. refuse to provide sources that prove that the AMA's stance is bunk, and
3. continue with your unfounded stance that what they say is wrong.

So I'll be more blunt: I've shown my hand, which is a full house, kings high (which could be aces high if I also bring in the NZMA's stance as well). Put up your evidence, sources included, that shows a royal flush, or again be reported for that T word.

BL.

I see your problem now, glad to help.

The WHO, EPA, and the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health do not verify what the IPCC publishes in their assessment reports. They're not equipped to do so. That's why I didn't mention them since they're no more credible as members of the consensus than would be the American Bakers Association.

NASA's got problems of their own. James Hansen just retired from NASA last year and was famous for predicting in 1988 that temps would have risen from 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050. Wrong wrong wrong.

So, the AMA got their AGW info from NASA and IPCC, and were unable to verify it. But they went with the consensus because "global climate change is now widely accepted by the majority of scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists".

If you can't prove it because you don't understand the science, what use is your support other than to swell the numbers of the consensus?

Now do you understand why science can't be consensus?

 

[bradl]

I see your problem now, glad to help.

The WHO, EPA, and the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health do not verify what the IPCC publishes in their assessment reports. They're not equipped to do so. That's why I didn't mention them: they're no more credible as members of the consensus than would be the American Bakers Association.

NASA's got problems of their own. James Hansen just retired from NASA last year and was famous for predicting in 1988 that temps would have risen from 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050. Wrong wrong wrong.

So, the AMA got their AGW info from NASA and IPCC, and were unable to verify it. But they went with the consensus because "global climate change is now widely accepted by the majority of scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists".

If you can't prove it because you don't understand the science, what use is your support other than to swell the numbers of the consensus.

Now do you understand why science can't be consensus?

In short, you have nothing. And there is no "consensus" for their stance. From their PDF again:

Conclusions. Ongoing global climate change is now widely accepted by the majority of scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists, and human activity is accelerating this process. The extent of climate change will depend on many factors; most notably, changes in global greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic contributions to global climate change exist, and the IPCC reports make a compelling case for linkage between these events. The effects of global climate change may be widespread, with impacts on ecosystems, land composition, sea levels, weather patterns, and ice coverage. The potential exists for devastating events with serious health implications, including extreme heat and cold events, flooding and droughts, increases in vectors carrying infectious diseases, and increases in air pollution. The health effects from these events should be of concern to the medical community and require action.

I've quoted nearly the entire PDF that I have linked three times now, yet you still have nothing to refute their stance. So I ask again. Cite your sources that refute the AMA's document and their stance. Third request now. Provide sources to refute, or be reported.

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

In short, you have nothing. And there is no "consensus" for their stance. From their PDF again:



I've quoted nearly the entire PDF that I have linked three times now, yet you still have nothing to refute their stance. So I ask again. Cite your sources that refute the AMA's document and their stance. Third request now. Provide sources to refute, or be reported.

BL.

I have said multiple times that since the AMA is unable to verify what the IPCC tells them, their membership in the consensus is as meaningless as any other organization that doesn't have climate scientists (or related disciplines) would be. My original point was that the AMA, as quoted by NASA, foolishly agreed with the science of AGW, even though they couldn't verify it themselves. I provided the quote for you and it shows that consensus, when it comes to science, is empty.

You've cited quotes that say the AMA gets information from other groups than the IPCC, but they're not doing research into climate science, so I don't know what you think you're proving.

I can see that you're going to keep trying to change the subject to something where you think you have an advantage, but I'm not interested in doing that.

Unless you acknowledge that you understand the points I've repeatedly made, I'm done with this.