No, I won't shut up The people have painted themselves, I'm just pointing out the truth. Have a nice day.
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
No, I won't shut up The people have painted themselves, I'm just pointing out the truth. Have a nice day.
Sad but true. The energy companies can see the writing on the wall though, initiatives like Apples green energy provision for its data centres are changing general perceptions quicker than these idiots can get their outdated ideologies out. I would say pretty much everyone has to support Apples stance because they can see it benefits the Apple brand which earns them a lot more than they spend on setting up a few solar power plants. Just like the human rights stuff for workers in China, not a direct money spinner but good for the brand. People are generally better informed these days than they were say 30 years ago and this kind of crap doesn't go down well any more.
Part of the reason for this is that is that countries like China are much richer than they were so the workers have more power to get this information out to the rest of us.
I was talking about the profit at any cost crap rather than the situation in China specifically but I get your point.
The OP claimed, however, that Apple was not in the business of making money but rather had another goal. Making money is what lets Apple do all the other, quite laudable, things. That Apple does that does not change that they are first and foremost interested in making a profit. I lil what they chose to do as a company with their profits, as do many shareholders as evidenced by the vote, but if they profits disappeared Apple would forgo many laudable things as they seek to return to profitability.
First, buying shares in a publicly traded company, unless part of an offering or the company is selling unissued stock, gives the company no money. So, in order to do whatever they set out to do they have to make money. If they don't, soon for later they go out of business because eventually the money runs out. So, job one, even if they don't like to admit it is to make money.
Apple's behavior is entirely consistent with a company that seeks to make a profit; they simply chose to use some of those profits in worthwhile ways. That is independent of profit maximizing activities, it just means their net profit is a little less.
Nope, you've missed the point too, which isn't that subtle, so I'm beginning to wonder about you guys.
What instigated the current phase of the argument was that a couple guys here were using The Consensus to try to shut down debate (i.e., "where are all the scientists on your side?", etc.).
I responded with Crichton's quote that consensus isn't science and science isn't consensus.
Somebody then posted a couple links showing what the consensus comprised. I looked at NASA's and was immediately struck by the incongruous collection of supporters listed. The American Medical Association was supporting the climate science? On what basis?
It appeared, from AMA sources, that they had not double-checked the science, but were simply supporting AGW science because others were doing so.
So in reality "the consensus" is the IPCC and a bunch of cheerleaders. The groups like the AMA add nothing to the debate. Hence citing The Consensus in order to shut down debate is a logical fallacy.
It wasn't my argument. I hope you now understand what my argument was.
If it's so obvious an explanation, why didn't the GCMs factor it in 15 years ago? Why has the pause come as such a surprise to AGW scientists?
And why is it that in 1988:
Mathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth's surface to warm by trapping infrared radiation from the sun, turning the entire earth into a kind of greenhouse.
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.
And in 2001, the IPCC stated in the third assessment report:
The IPCC delegates could not agree on a precise statement about the probability that warming would truly fall within the range 1.4-5.8°C. But they did say it was "likely" that the warming during the next few decades would be 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade. They defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of being true. One approach to defining the meaning of such statements was to make a wide variety of computer model runs, and see what fraction fell within the announced limits. Later findings suggested a probable upper limit even higher than the IPCC's.
They were absolutely wrong in their predictions of temperature increases, and CO2 has continued to increase while temperatures remained essentially steady. Those were critical aspects of AGW theory and they've been wrong.
They were absolutely wrong in their predictions of temperature increases, and CO2 has continued to increase while temperatures remained essentially steady. Those were critical aspects of AGW theory and they've been wrong.
Yet now the IPCC says:
Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3º C
In any other field of endeavor, such inaccuracy would discredit the entire field, yet the AGW faithful are always forgiving.
I didn't start the fire. As for my being "hoisted", I assume you've reconsidered.
Last edited:
No they haven't. Again this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in this thread but you refuse to read any of the sources.
You have been completely and utterly mislead by disingenuous blog pieces paid for by the rightwing think tank the heartland institute with money from sources ideologically opposed to the science.
The science is solid. The IPCC projections are firming. The heartland institute, anthony watts, and monckton have all failed miserably in every respect except to line their own pockets and get their 15 minutes of fame.
But that's not what the IPCC says is it? I'm glad that you are embarrassed to link to whatsupwiththat as a reference it shows some insight.
Depsite you trying your best to hide it a quick google demonstrates you've lifted everything you've posted verbatim from whatsupwiththat. A single, unreliable, non-scientific source. You've been had.
Last edited:
You were quite right of course. My blind faith in logical argument was misplaced.
You're quite right here also, and I'm sorry for the contribution I've made to this derailment. I'll stop now, promise.
The consensus argument is a difficult one because at heart, it's essentially an appeal to authority. On the other hand, it should be the scientific equivalent of "if you're so smart, why ain't you rich" or, if the climate isn't changing, then what's really going on.
The appeal to consensus is really about noting how many people are researching AGW and are coming back with real data suggesting that the theory is true, and how few come back with the opposite answer.
When we talk about the whether or not the Earth is 93 million miles away from the sun, we don't pay much attention to skeptics because understanding the distance between the Earth and the Sun contains settled science. But, imagine if some crank were to immediately argue that the Earth is only 36 million miles away from the Sun, proclaimed themselves a skeptic, and then spent millions of dollars trying to convince the public that scientists were wrong and at the behest of the yard-stick ruler industry.
The claim would be then, if you think it's only 36, tell us why and show us your research. And, then we'd see that the Short Distance crowd and the Skeptic crowd aren't really doing science, instead they're standing around poking holes in the basic argument for their own ideology.
And, this makes it very difficult to have a real discussion about the science because research is complicated and evolving. Cassini's measurement was 87 million miles but he was off by 10 percentwhich is actually pretty accurate.
And, even Crichton was wrong about the distance of the Earth to the Sun because the Earth's slightly elliptical orbit means the distance ranges from 91,402,506 miles to 94,509,130 miles.
Science isn't consensus, but neither is raw, unadulterated skepticism, unwilling to listen.
Remember too the consensus position came about to rebut deniers claiming that the science was in disagreement. It was the same play as creationists - that there is a controversy and two sides to the story. In common press this gets played as a false equivalence - both sides get the same focus in telling their position despite one side being completely unsupported and/or unqualified to give an opinion. But conflict sells.
Certainly.
Repeated conversations among press has noted the failure to cover Climate Change well because the news value "conflict" allowed too many stories to be built around a false dichotomy.
Essentially, groups like Heritage "hacked" the news by playing to this and to the fear of many journalists for appearing biased by not including the "opposition."
Apparently the decision has been made that it's not a derailment. So (though I disagree) this thread is deemed the proper place for this discussion to take place.
Exactly! Having a bunch of bakers or a bunch of medicos support AGW science adds nothing to the gravitas of The Consensus.
Second, we're in 15 year pause in global warming that the climate scientists didn't predict and haven't explained
Evidence of the pause: "In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the pause in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues."
Evidence that the pause was a surprise to AGW alarmists comes from the IPCC in their third assessment report (TAR), which predicted that temps would keep rising if CO2 continued increasing:
The worst-case scenario supposed that global emissions of CO2 might rise faster than previous reports had considered. If that happened, the range of warming that the IPCC predicted for the late 21st century ran from 1.4°C up to a shocking 5.8°C (10°F). This range was not for the traditional doubled CO2 level, which was now expected to arrive around midcentury, but for the still higher levels that would come after 2070 unless the world took action....
The IPCC delegates could not agree on a precise statement about the probability that warming would truly fall within the range 1.4-5.8°C. But they did say it was "likely" that the warming during the next few decades would be 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade. They defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of being true. One approach to defining the meaning of such statements was to make a wide variety of computer model runs, and see what fraction fell within the announced limits. Later findings suggested a probable upper limit even higher than the IPCC's.
The IPCC delegates could not agree on a precise statement about the probability that warming would truly fall within the range 1.4-5.8°C. But they did say it was "likely" that the warming during the next few decades would be 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade. They defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of being true. One approach to defining the meaning of such statements was to make a wide variety of computer model runs, and see what fraction fell within the announced limits. Later findings suggested a probable upper limit even higher than the IPCC's.
"Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been."
--Dr. David Whitehouse
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.
"In Canada, the treaty was ratified by Parliament in 2002, and the Protocol's goal for Canada was for us to reduce our carbon emissions to six per cent below what they were in 1990. Instead, by 2009, the country's total carbon emissions were up by one-third over 1990 levels. The government adjusted our goals to 17 per cent below 2005 levels however even that was unattainable, perhaps showing the fundamental flaws of the Kyoto Protocol.
Citing the impossibility of meeting the goals set forth by the treaty and wanting to avoid the billions of dollars in penalties the country would have to pay for failing to meet those goals, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced last year that Canada would be withdrawing from Kyoto, and as of December 15th, 2012, we were out."
Citing the impossibility of meeting the goals set forth by the treaty and wanting to avoid the billions of dollars in penalties the country would have to pay for failing to meet those goals, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced last year that Canada would be withdrawing from Kyoto, and as of December 15th, 2012, we were out."
So Canada and other Kyoto Protocol signatories would have been fined billions of dollars for not reducing CO2, meanwhile temperatures were not rising.
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.
In its fifth assessment report, the IPCC has reduced the predictions of temperature increase from 1.4°C up to 5.8°C (third assessment report, 2001) to 1.5°C up to 2.0°C (fifth assessment report, 2014):
The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
Please cite the specific quotes showing that catastrophic climate change is occurring. The links to multipage docs you posted are not adequate.
----------
I see you've ignored my post. I guess it's because you agree with me
Don't be impatient. These things take time. I just posted my reply.
I disagree with that characterization. What people have pointed out to me may have seemed conclusive to you, but was probably not. I'm willing to take another look if you care to present quotes, not just links to multipage docs.
More "blah blah blah" from a member of the AGW faithful who supports their scientist-priests regardless of the evidence.
<snipped some of your unsupported blather>
You are correct. I should have posted the actual quote, but it's a lengthy section. Instead, here is what wikipedia says they've done:
In its fifth assessment report, the IPCC has reduced the predictions of temperature increase from 1.4°C up to 5.8°C (third assessment report, 2001) to 1.5°C up to 2.0°C (fifth assessment report, 2014):
The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
Yes there are a couple posts where I sourced WattsUpWithThat, and why not? It's as legitimate a site as RealClimate or any of the AGW alarmists blog sites.
To use your words, they are in no authority to make any judgments on Climate Change.
Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?
With them being so suspect and inaccurate, trusting them is as dumb as throwing a monkey into a room full of dynamite with a blowtorch.
They are in no authority. The AMA, and other organizations are.
BL.
Then quote my words on the matter. Certainly I don't trust your take on things.
Thanks for the link (didn't I mention that you should read your cites thoroughly?):
According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 9,282 in the U.S. and No. 24,144 world-wide.[16] WUWT receives more than two million visits per month.[17] Fred Pearce, environmental writer and author, described WUWT as the "world's most viewed climate website" in his 2010 publication of The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming.[18] Matt Ridley of The Spectator described WUWT as having "metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians".[19]
Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist and contributor to the IPCC First Assessment Report, described WUWT as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: "A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings."[20]
Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist and contributor to the IPCC First Assessment Report, described WUWT as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: "A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical very proficient at taking apart the U.N.'s findings."[20]
and:
The Times named Watts Up With That? as one of the 30 best science blogs and described it as: "One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs, written by a former TV weatherman. The ecofriendly blogger offers commentary on science, nature, climate change and technology, as well as 'puzzling things in life.'"[24] WUWT won the "Best Science Blog" award in the 2008 Weblog Awards, an internet organization that tallied 933,022 votes in 48 different categories for the 2008 awards.[25]
In February 2010, climatologist Judith Curry, as a guest contributor, published an open letter on WUWT and other climate-related blogs, "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust," in which Curry commented on the benefits of blog-led debate and called for greater transparency in scientists' work.[17] Also in 2010, Christopher Monckton published on WUWT his account of his "influence on Lady Thatcher's views about climate change during the 1980s".[26] Monckton, a skeptic towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming, also published a detailed rebuttal on WUWT in response to criticism directed at him by John Abraham, associate professor of mechanical engineering at University of St. Thomas.[27]
In February 2010, climatologist Judith Curry, as a guest contributor, published an open letter on WUWT and other climate-related blogs, "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust," in which Curry commented on the benefits of blog-led debate and called for greater transparency in scientists' work.[17] Also in 2010, Christopher Monckton published on WUWT his account of his "influence on Lady Thatcher's views about climate change during the 1980s".[26] Monckton, a skeptic towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming, also published a detailed rebuttal on WUWT in response to criticism directed at him by John Abraham, associate professor of mechanical engineering at University of St. Thomas.[27]
and:
WUWT won the Bloggies in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for best science blog, and in 2013 for best weblog overall.[5][6][7] It was recognized by The Times as one of the top 30 science blogs of 2009. It was voted the "Best Science Blog" in the 2008 Weblog Awards.
I think we'll bring this bit of embarrassment for you to a close....
Here you go:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18834373/
DUCKofD3ATH said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18835396/
DUCKofD3ATH said:
Likewise, this Blog of yours is not an organization that studies climate science.
No need. From that same link:
When you have Fox News attributing articles to them, based on their 'right to lie', everything that both Fox, and WattsUpWithThat have to say becomes suspect. In short, they can't be proven to be true, factually, scientifically, or otherwise.
Again, your argument falls flatter than a female gymnast in the Olympics.
It is a shame that you don't even realize how much your stance and your posts are being riddled and ridiculed here. Or perhaps it is naivety. Either way, it is failing miserably.
BL.
Ah, but I'm not using WattsUpWithThat as a reason to make it so you can't take part in the debate. Remember that the whole AMA issue came up because The Consensus was being used here as an means to squash debate from skeptics.
I proved that simply citing the consensus as a reason that skeptics can't debate AGW science was a logical fallacy.
Oh my! That is just so chucklicious! So you swallowed that "right to lie" story? Alright, cite proof that WTVT actually asserted a "right to lie" in its newscasts. I need something from the court record.
I have the facts on my side. You can have the unwashed masses.
I've cited their decisions from their own documents. citizenzen posted the same thing. Yet you keep going on with this without showing or citing any proof.
Cite them. This is my last request before reporting you.
Already proven in this forum. and [url=https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/91771/[/url] for starters.
Either way, off topic. You want to debate that, revive one of the 19 threads here and we'll throw down.
You have yet to show any facts. I've asked you to post them now for the SIXTH time. Show your hand, please.
BL.
- Status