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

[bradl]

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.

Again, I have provided sources; you haven't.

I've quoted sources; you've quoted nothing.

I have corroborated the same findings of the AMA with the Australian Medical Association; I can corroborate those with the New Zealand Medical Association. You haven't provided anything.

You think that the AMA isn't qualified to research climate change because they are medical. Common sense for you, sir: Medicine IS Science. They research health and medicine based on climate change. And they are in a hell of a lot better position than you are to say yay or nay.

So, final time: sources that refute, or I'm pulling the trigger on that report button.

BL.

P.S. You said you were done 50 posts ago; you're still here. If you're done, take your own advice and leave.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Again, I have provided sources; you haven't.

I've quoted sources; you've quoted nothing.

I've quoted NASA and have referred to other sources I've posted on this topic. I don't have to keep reposting stuff just because you won't take the time to read what's come before you posted.

I have corroborated the same findings of the AMA with the Australian Medical Association; I can corroborate those with the New Zealand Medical Association. You haven't provided anything.

They're medical associations. Same argument applies as with the AMA. Surely this is obvious even to you?

You think that the AMA isn't qualified to research climate change because they are medical. Common sense for you, sir: Medicine IS Science. They research health and medicine based on climate change. And they are in a hell of a lot better position than you are to say yay or nay.

That's nonsense. Please cite a source that says the AMA actually verified the climate science before joining the consensus.

P.S. You said you were done 50 posts ago; you're still here. If you're done, take your own advice and leave.

I don't like boredom. You were becoming boring but then I thought you were going to challenge me. Now you're tedious again.

Hey, if you don't like the back and forth, I'll just ignore you on this topic.

Let me know (but provide that cite showing where the AMA double-checked the science behind AGW first).

 

[Renzatic]

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

You cling to that word like a drowning man grasping for flotsam.

 

[bradl]

I've quoted NASA and have referred to other sources I've posted on this topic. I don't have to keep reposting stuff just because you won't take the time to read what's come before you posted.

And I've that claim with 4 copies of my own, in which you keep telling me that I'm wrong, yet show nothing to support your claim that I am wrong.

They're medical associations. Same argument applies as with the AMA. Surely this is obvious even to you?

The study of health and medicine: is or is it not science? Yes or no?
Is not the study of climate change science? yes, or no?

If yes to both questions, the study of climate change and the effects it has on health are related. That makes a medical association an authority to study climate change, because of how it affects health and medicines to support health.

Surely this is obvious even to you? Wait; don't answer that. I don't want you to perjure yourself.

That's nonsense. Please cite a source that says the AMA actually verified the climate science before joining the consensus.

I'll do you one better. A paper they published and own the rights to.
http://www.calcleancars.org/archives/JAMA010704.pdf

Referenced via http://www.bu.edu/sph/files/2012/08...-_Impacts_Vulnerability_and_Public_Health.pdf

I suggest you read it.

Furthermore, here is why climate change should be regarded and reframed as a health issue. Oh, written by someone who has more initials at the back of his name than you.

You should read that too, but my guess is you'll go the way of the ostrich when it gets scared.

I don't like boredom. You were becoming boring but then I thought you were going to challenge me. Now you're tedious again.

Hey, if you don't like the back and forth, I'll just ignore you on this topic.

You know where that ignore button is. Money where your mouth is and use it, if you don't like the debate.

Let me know (but provide that cite showing where the AMA double-checked the science behind AGW first).

Done.

BL.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

And I've that claim with 4 copies of my own, in which you keep telling me that I'm wrong, yet show nothing to support your claim that I am wrong.

I stated that NASA's quote from the AMA was meaningless because the AMA were not equipped to verify the science they were supporting.

You've argued that they were qualified to do so, so I've asked you to provide a cite backing that up.

The study of health and medicine: is or is it not science? Yes or no?
Is not the study of climate change science? yes, or no?

If yes to both questions, the study of climate change and the effects it has on health are related.

But that's not my point is it? Yes or no?

My point was that the AMA made a statement regarding the validity of AGW that they were not qualified to make unless they had 1) verified the science themselves or 2) simply jumped on the bandwagon because so many other people were doing it.

The quote in the source you provided shows they opted for 2, which was a foolish thing to do and showed that consensus is empty of value.

That makes a medical association an authority to study climate change, because of how it affects health and medicines to support health.

You are arguing a point that has no bearing on what I stated. I never claimed that the AMA couldn't opine on the health effects of AGW. But that's not what they said is it? They said:

"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)​

See? Nothing mentioned about health, just that they agreed with the climate science. I've made this point before. Is it clear this time?

I'll do you one better. A paper they published and own the rights to.
http://www.calcleancars.org/archives/JAMA010704.pdf

Once again, you're not getting the point. That article references the data from the IPCC. I asked you to provide a cite that showed the AMA double-checked the IPCC's data and science before saying they supported said science.

Furthermore, here is why climate change should be regarded and reframed as a health issue.

Yet another attempt to change the subject.

 

[Renzatic]

Once again, you're not getting the point. That article references the data from the IPCC. I asked you to provide a cite that showed the AMA double-checked the IPCC's data and science before saying they supported said science.

Your entire argument hinges upon the IPCC's data being suspect, and that the AMA supports them as a kneejerk reaction to a hot topic issue, without considering the veracity of the source themselves.

For your argument to be taken seriously, you have to prove the former, that the IPCC's data is suspect, and the latter, than the AMA supports it simply because it's popular.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Your entire argument hinges upon the IPCC's data being suspect, and that the AMA supports them as a kneejerk reaction to a hot topic issue, without considering the veracity of the source themselves.

For your argument to be taken seriously, you have to prove the former, that the IPCC's data is suspect, and the latter, than the AMA supports it simply because it's popular.

Sheesh, Renzatic! Didn't you see my post earlier showing how far off the IPCC and NASA's James Hansen's predictions were?

The IPCC has gotten their results wrong repeatedly. Somebody should be double-checking their data and science!

My argument stemmed from one of the guys who earlier posted NASA's link on the consensus, as if that proved anything. I then pointed out the American Medical Association throwing in with the AGW crowd by saying they agreed with the science...even though nobody has provided a cite showing they did the barest due diligence to verify that said science was credible.

What NASA's article on consensus proved is that consensus isn't science.

As for the AMA supporting AGW science because it was popular, this was from the conclusion in the PDF bradl cited: "Ongoing global climate change is now widely accepted by the majority of scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists, and human activity is accelerating this process." Nowhere does it state "we proved it for ourselves."

Bandwagon!

 

[Renzatic]

Sheesh, Renzatic! Didn't you see my post earlier showing how far off the IPCC and NASA's James Hansen's predictions were?

The IPCC has gotten their results wrong repeatedly. Somebody should be double-checking their data and science!

You haven't proven anything thus far. The only compelling arguments you've presented have long since been debunked, yet you continually ignore any evidence contrary to your opinion, and attempt to reword the same basic spiel again and again, hoping you can find just the right turn of phrase to throw whoever you're arguing with off guard, and make it look like you've won.

You're no longer debating climate change, you're being obtuse in order to save what face you have left.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You haven't proven anything thus far. The only compelling arguments you've presented have long since been debunked, yet you continually ignore any evidence contrary to your opinion, and attempt to reword the same basic spiel again and again, hoping you can find just the right turn of phrase to throw whoever you're arguing with off guard, and make it look like you've won.

You're no longer debating climate change, you're being obtuse in order to save what face you have left.

I hope you're not trolling here, so I'm asking you to cite the arguments I've supposedly made that you say have been debunked. Then, provide sources to the debunking arguments.

Thanks so much.

 

[Renzatic]

I hope you're not trolling here, so I'm asking you to cite the arguments I've supposedly made that you say have been debunked. Then, provide sources to the debunking arguments.

Thanks so much.

I'm not gonna waste my time pointing out something you're already well aware of. If you sincerely thinking I'm trolling, you're more than welcome to hit that big blue report button red and white triangle, and let the moderators sort me out.

...but you won't do that, because we both know what you're doing.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

I'm not gonna waste my time pointing out something you're already well aware of. If you sincerely thinking I'm trolling, you're more than welcome to hit that big blue report button and let the moderators sort me out.

...but you won't do that, because we both know what you're doing.

Yeah, I'm arguing a point and you can't refute it. So you resort to ad hominem replies.

If you keep up the trolling insults, I'll report you. Otherwise, I suggest you move on.

 

[bradl]

You haven't proven anything thus far. The only compelling arguments you've presented have long since been debunked, yet you continually ignore any evidence contrary to your opinion, and attempt to reword the same basic spiel again and again, hoping you can find just the right turn of phrase to throw whoever you're arguing with off guard, and make it look like you've won.

You're no longer debating climate change, you're being obtuse in order to save what face you have left.

Yeah, I'm arguing a point and you can't refute it. So you resort to ad hominem replies.

If you keep up the trolling insults, I'll report you. Otherwise, I suggest you move on.

Renzatic is absolutely right here. Your posts are bloody obtuse that your argument is turning into a mobius. And to quote Sheldon Cooper:

Q. Why did the chicken cross the mobius?
A. To get to the same side!

you've gone around so much in circles that even NASCAR fans are getting dizzy from watching the same circle you are turning in.

To summarize: The AMA put out a report. You refit the report because you believe it is bunk. I bring forth evidence that shows that it isn't. you don't believe the evidence and continue to believe that it is bunk. I ask you for evidence proving that it is bunk.

Cricket chips and frog croaks from your side. You have nothing, and can't continue this debate without either undermining your entire stance, losing all credibility, or conceding. Your ego won't let you do any of those, so you continue to go around in circles, bringing you into the mobius you are in.

Repeating the same thing in this forum without any evidence to back up those repeated statements is by definition trolling and against the rules. We are simply calling it like we see it, and aren't afraid to use that button Renzatic mentioned, just as much as you have threatened others with.

If you believe that to be a personal attack, then by all means use that button and see if we get thrown into time out. Otherwise, I still am waiting on those sources from you.

The choice is yours: continue and see how you look at the end of this debate, or report and see if we get dealt with. As they say in Yugioh, your move.

BL.

 

[aristotle]

Tim Cook, Apple is a publicly traded company. You work for the owners of the company which are the shareholders. It is not your toy to use to spread your ideology or your personal value set upon the world.

I think the shareholders and the board need to pull back on leash a bit.

He needs to focus on running the company and to leave the politics to the politicians. It is not his company to do with as he pleases.

Main focus of all publicly traded companies is "FOR PROFIT". Apple's main driving focus in the past has been maximizing profitability of the company which is why they have wisely not chased after marketshare at the expense of profit margin.

 

[alephnull12]

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.

LOL, actually, no. That's probably what your clueless high school teacher told you when he was trying to convince you that you high school science fair project was real science. But what he was really describing, was the bare minimum for conducting "cargo cult" science, which goes to show just how valuable it is.

Peer review is not necessary for someone to do science.

Someone can do science without publishing, or just publish their results without peer review. If the results are correct, it stands. Matters not who is doing it or how they communicate it. You may not be able to effectively beg from the government to have your salary paid if you do not put your results through process you just described, but it has little to do with what is actual science.

And in case you don't believe me, consider for example, there are a ton of people out in industry doing great science, who never publish any of it. Why? Because that's not what they are paid to do, or maybe their company prefers to maintain a proprietary standing or trade secret. Or maybe, they publish it as a patent only (undergoes a legal review but not a scientific one). Also, the entire Manhattan project was conducted without publishing a single word in the peer reviewed literature. They just dropped a bomb on someone -- no consensus needed.

Conversely, there is a lot of dreck in the peer reviewed literature. Papers which turn out to be incorrect, papers published that contain results contradictory to other results published in the peer reviewed literature. Just look at the medical literature. There is a lot of contradictory, ambiguous stuff out there. Contradictory and incorrect stuff gets published in the peer reviewed literature all the time. Then, once in a while, some group of docs get together try to look at all that crap and generate a "consensus." A couple or ten years later, the consensus changes.

They wouldn't use the word consensus do describe what they were doing if they actually knew the answer.

Which means, consensus doesn't amount to a heck of a lot. In some cases, it's good for standardization, but not much for verifying scientific veracity.

And in fact, that's what Crichton is talking about, really. Not the publication process. He's saying, if you are reading in a newspaper that there is a "scientific consensus" about something, it usually means it's not really completely known. Otherwise, the language would never be used to describe what they are saying.

 

[.Andy]

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.

This is a very odd thing for you to claim given your "reference" earlier in the thread was a link to whatsupwiththat, a website run by a non-scientist anthony watts, with a guest column by non-scientist christopher monckton, funded by a right wing think tank of non-scientists (the heartland institute), paid for by petrochemical companies such as exxonmobil - comprised of non climate scientists.

Are you sure you're backing the right horse?

 

[Eraserhead]

Which means, consensus doesn't amount to a heck of a lot. In some cases, it's good for standardization, but not much for verifying scientific veracity.

And in fact, that's what Crichton is talking about, really. Not the publication process. He's saying, if you are reading in a newspaper that there is a "scientific consensus" about something, it usually means it's not really completely known. Otherwise, the language would never be used to describe what they are saying.

So do you believe that climate change is occurring? And what language should be used to describe it?

 

[jowie]

Loving how Tim is using "bloody"... Brit vernacular is spreading

 

[everything-i]

Blinkered profit-first thinking like this is just disgusting in a civilised society. Tim Cook showed great restraint I think, given the proposal put forward by these idiots. It has been shown time and time again that heading towards the common good gives the best outcome, selfish money grabbing thinking always leads to huge problems down the line. We have just been through the biggest financial crisis in history which was created by the self same profit centric thinking proposed here.

 

[BasilFawlty]

The NCPRR are a wholly awful organisation. They are an embarrassment to the conservative name.


Everyone to NCPRR: Drop Dead.

Right on Brother! We must NEVER be tolerant of people with whom we disagree. Anyone who doesn't believe in man-caused global warming can burn in hell!

 

[citizenzen]

I never claimed that the AMA couldn't opine on the health effects of AGW. But that's not what they said is it? They said:

"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)​

See? Nothing mentioned about health, just that they agreed with the climate science. I've made this point before. Is it clear this time?

Perhaps it's your method of gathering data.

I searched the very arcane terms: AMA + Climate Change, and the top hit was a report summary.

Here are excerpts from that summary. [Health highlighted to aid your ability to see that word] ...

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (I-08)
Global Climate Change and Human Health

Summary

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. Lastly, the Web sites of several scientific authorities on global climate change and human health such as (but not limited to) the EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the IPCC were consulted for their specific content related to global climate change.

Results. Significant advances have occurred in the understanding of global climate change, and a large volume of published literature on this topic has appeared, particularly in the last half-century. The IPCC and other scientific researchers assert that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Many health effects attributable to changes in the global climate system have been noted. These health effects are based on specific predicted climate-related events, including the effects of heat waves, climate events related to changes in water levels (either extreme flooding or droughts), and increases in infectious and/or vector-borne diseases. Additional modeling has been conducted to estimate more of the downstream health effects of global climate change, including changes in food yields and water supplies that could result in malnutrition and or dehydration.

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.

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

 

[WaxedJacket]

I bet that rep feels like a right knob head.

What a slimy worm.

 

[Eraserhead]

Right on Brother! We must NEVER be tolerant of people with whom we disagree. Anyone who doesn't believe in man-caused global warming can burn in hell!

It isn't really a very serious opinion...

 

[Smith288]

Right on Brother! We must NEVER be tolerant of people with whom we disagree. Anyone who doesn't believe in man-caused global warming can burn in hell!

Switch out "Climate Change deniers" with "witch craft" and you will quickly see some very convincing parallels. Human nature is an odd thing at times.

(fully expect my burning stake any moment...)

 

[dmw16]

The question seems silly to begin with. Isn't Apple already delivering hugely to its investors?

 

[scott911]

Well done Mr. Cook.