Absolutely. It is absurd that a think-tank is lecturing Apple, of all companies, on profits. Apple has been the most consistently profitable large company of the last, tough, decade.
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.
Tim Cook Angrily Rejects Political Proposal Asking for Profits-First Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Absolutely. It is absurd that a think-tank is lecturing Apple, of all companies, on profits. Apple has been the most consistently profitable large company of the last, tough, decade.
Well no one would take someone who believes in magic very seriously...
That said no one has been killed or arrested for being a climate change denier so...
Au contraire, you are distorting what has occurred. I said that NASA's article on consensus simply proved that consensus isn't science. To prove it, I showed that the AMA had supported the science, even though they didn't verify it.
That you wanted to change the subject to something else was not something I was interested in pursuing. Especially since you didn't have the courtesy to address my point before moving on to your points.
So I'm still waiting for you to produce the cite showing the AMA double-checked the IPCC's results before supporting the science.
They're skeptical of climate science, trying to determine what is valid.
They haven't blindly signed on to a consensus simply because that's what all the cool kids are doing.
But hey, the guy who runs Skeptical Science used to write a comic strip. So kudos to you.
Good for Tim. I agree with some other comments. Steve would have torn him apart. I applaud Tim for being assertive but not rude. It's not who he is. Well done, indeed.
How can this be such a difficult concept for the AGW Faithful?
NASA has a list of organizations that agree with the science of AGW. Amongst them is the American Medical Association. Nobody has produced evidence that the AMA did due diligence to verify that the science they were supporting was valid.
Indeed, the evidence thus far is that they support AGW because everybody else is doing it.
That's reprehensible and renders the conceit that "The Consensus" has the authority to squash debate laughable.
First, the climate is always changing.
Second, we're in 15 year pause in global warming that the climate scientists didn't predict and haven't explained
Third, if we'd listened to the IPCC and James Hansen and signed on to Kyoto, umpteen billions would have been spent correcting a problem that hasn't existed for more than a decade.
Finally, where is the evidence that AGW is correct? CO2 has continued to rise, yet the temperature increases the alarmists promised are not in sight. The IPCC has belatedly recognized this fact by lowering the predicted temperature increases in the latest assessment report.
So what serious evidence is there that catastrophic climate change (the only form of climate change worth discussing) is occurring?
If the American Bakers Association joined The Consensus, would you be impressed that a bunch of bakers had hopped on the bandwagon? Not likely!
Wisdom is not additive. Just because a bunch of organizations think the IPCC is correct about global warming doesn't make the weight of their opinion any more valid than the IPCC's opinion by itself. Especially so if they came to their agreement with the IPCC without first verifying the science.
So when the AGW faithful try to shut down debate because there's a consensus, now you know why that argument is a logical fallacy.
----------
All which points? Your request should be specific.
Also, I've requested evidence from you that catastrophic AGW is ongoing. Don't forget to provide that.
I don't see how it makes any difference either way.
OK, then points 2, 3 and 4.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...obal-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
First impression, yes they look like idiots spouting random garbage. Second impression, they are starting to look like geniuses:
They've been in business for 30 years.
They seem to work for the oil companies
They seed out anticompetitive misinformation.
They get people riled up so as not to see their motivations
Supporters & collaborators get additional air time in places just like this
The old energy industry keeps another generation under its thumb
You have not produced any evidence that the AMA did not verify that the science they were supporting was valid.
That of course does not mean the AMA needs to replicate the studies themselves. They are physicians, not climate scientists. If you believe this kind of due diligence is necessary, then you are clearly not being reasonable.
Please explain what you believe would qualify as due diligence on the part of the AMA.
Cite that evidence.
Conservative as in conserving their members aims at unending profit no matter the cost?
Then this:
So much for 'non-partisan'.
And this made me laugh:
And urging corporations to outsource their jobs to China and any other third world hell hole is somehow "an appropriate role" for the Chamber of Commerce?
I'm amazed at the myopic view of the corporate types. No wonder we are fracking the hell out of this country. Screwing for virginity doesn't work...
I'm damn glad Apple is focused on being a good neighbor (and BOO! on GE for giving in to this band of environmental terrorists!). If only Dow Chemical were as focused, we wouldn't have had them dumping screwed up batches of their chemicals into the river that runs near my house!
(Which BTW makes Love Canal look like a water park in comparison. With the money they have spent in lobbyists and politicians, they could have cleaned up the entire area, and then some!)--------
People are seriously throwing up Monckton and The Heartland Institute? Some people will believe anything...
Last edited:
There are two parts to the issue of Global Warming.
There is the science that proves its existence and causes and there is the socio-political arena where people will be asked to make sacrifices in order to ameliorate the effects of this phenomenon.
It's because of those personal sacrifices that politics has entered the realm of science. Politics doesn't care if space is expanding. Nobody is being asked to change their lifestyle based on the existence of the Higgs Boson. But Global Warming is different. We and subsequent generations will be asked to devote time, energy and money to both ease the effects of Climate Change and recover from it's harmful effects.
That's why politics has become entangled in this matter. That is why consensus is needed to help move our leaders and the people to make the difficult decisions on this matter.
Off topic, but in no way is China in 2014 a "third world hell hole". Hell very few countries meet that description these days.
China has essentially no environmental, labor, or other regulations. That looks like a hell hole to me. I for one wouldn't want to live there, and I'd hate to live downwind of there too!
China has essentially no environmental, labor, or other regulations. That looks like a hell hole to me. I for one wouldn't want to live there, and I'd hate to live downwind of there too!
And yet China spends more as a percentage of GDP on climate change than the UK - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsde...-actually-doing-more-tackle-climate-change-uk
China has also increased their minimum wage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15456509
I also don't think a country with cities that look like this is a hellhole:
Ok, I'm weighing in one last time.
It seems that your current argument boils down to the fact that the AMA haven't actually gone and built themselves a whole lot of satellites/weather stations or something so as to verify the reported temperature changes. As such, you argue that they are unable to argue the point, because they've not independently verified the claims of others. If that really is your argument, then I would respectfully suggest that until you can produce evidence that you yourself have independently verified your own "scientific" claims, then you surely, by the same logic, have no right to take part in this discussion. The logic is irrefutable.
Actually, the very same Met Office article you were so enthusiastically quoting from earlier on was about this very point - it did explain it. Others, such as Gnasher729, have even given you a layman's example to help you understand it:
Anyway, I very much hope that, on the grounds that you now find yourself hoisted by your own petard, you will finally allow the rest of those in the thread to carry on the real discussion, which was never about climate change in the first place.
And yet China spends more as a percentage of GDP on climate change than the UK - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsde...-actually-doing-more-tackle-climate-change-uk
China has also increased their minimum wage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15456509
I also don't think a country with cities that look like this is a hellhole:
The fact that China had to close businesses down before and during their hosting of the Olympics due to the smog and pollution should leave you with nothing to say. And I hope you are being compensated well...
Two points.
1. Deniers are rarely hoisted on their own petard. They are deeply invested in their position, having argued against science and evidence for so long, and will hold to their denial regardless of logic and evidence.
2. I have twice reported and asked for this topic to be split from this thread and merged with the active Climate Change thread already ongoing in PRSI. I feel quite sorry for members who have to wade through the Climate Change debate when they would rather talk about Tim Cook and Apple.
Sure China has a pollution problem. So did London in the 1950s...
London still wasn't a hell hole at that stage.
Yeah because nothing good ever happens in China
.- Status