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

[citizenzen]

Yet now the IPCC says ... global warming this century could be as little as 1.3º C

The IPCC's 2013 Report, CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 — The Physical Science Basis is available to anyone who wishes to download a 300+mb, 1,5552 page PDF.

It is available here along with an executive summary: http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

On page 1055, there is a table that lays out four projections to the end of 2100.

Chapter 12 — Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility

Table 12.2 | CMIP5 annual mean surface air temperature anomalies (°C) from the 1986–2005 reference period for selected time periods, regions and RCPs*.

2081-2100

Global
1.0 ± 0.4 (0.3, 1.7) RCP2.6
1.8 ± 0.5 (1.1, 2.6) RCP4.5
2.2 ± 0.5 (1.4, 3.1) RCP6.0
3.7 ± 0.7 (2.6, 4.8) RCP8.5

Land
1.2 ± 0.6 (0.3, 2.2) RCP2.6
2.4 ± 0.6 (1.3, 3.4) RCP4.5
3.0 ± 0.7 (1.8, 4.1) RCP6.0
4.8 ± 0.9 (3.4, 6.2) RCP8.5

Ocean
0.8 ± 0.4 (0.2, 1.4) RCP2.6
1.5 ± 0.4 (0.9, 2.2) RCP4.5
1.9 ± 0.4 (1.1, 2.6) RCP6.0
3.1 ± 0.6 (2.1, 4.0) RCP8.5

Tropics
0.9 ± 0.3 (0.3, 1.4) RCP2.6
1.6 ± 0.4 (0.9, 2.3) RCP4.5
2.0 ± 0.4 (1.3, 2.7) RCP6.0
3.3 ± 0.6 (2.2, 4.4) RCP8.5

Polar Arctic
2.2 ± 1.7 (-0.5, 5.0) RCP2.6
4.2 ± 1.6 (1.6, 6.9) RCP4.5
5.2 ± 1.9 (2.1, 8.3) RCP6.0
8.3 ± 1.9 (5.2, 11.4) RCP8.5

Polar: Antarctic
0.8 ± 0.6 (-0.2, 1.8) RCP2.6
1.5 ± 0.7 (0.3, 2.7) RCP4.5
1.7 ± 0.9 (0.2, 3.2) RCP6.0
3.1 ± 1.2 (1.1, 5.1) RCP8.5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

*Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are four greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectories adopted by the IPCC for its fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

The pathways are used for climate modeling and research. They describe four possible climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on how much greenhouse gases are emitted in the years to come. The four RCPs, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5, are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial values (+2.6, +4.5, +6.0, and +8.5 W/m2, respectively). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

So when you state that by the end of this century, Global Warming could be as low as 1.3º C you are quoting the lower end [and not even the lowest] of a probability.

According to the four models published in the report, it could be as low [globally] as 0.3º C (.54º F) and as high as 4.8º C (8.64º F).

 

[G4er?]

Anyone that thinks Apple isn't already thinking and acting profits first is a fool.

 

[cmwade77]

Now I am not a big believer in the idea that we need to fight climate change, as I don't think we have as much control over that as we think we do.

That being said, we should be taking care of the environment, as it's the right thing to do, so I think Tim is completely right on this one.

The bottom line is if you do what is right, people will buy your products.

 

[PracticalMac]

... and to embrace a corporate policy that focused on profits above all else...


The representative asked Cook about the impact of the company's renewable energy programs on its bottom line, and also asked Cook to commit to only undertaking projects that were explicitly profitable.

<snip>

Following the meeting, the NCPPR released an incendiary press release that is heavily critical of Cook, claiming that shareholder value is destroyed in favor of efforts to combat climate change.

On one hand "conservatives" talk about letting people and companies do what they please with the income,

and on the other they blast a company if they spend any money on non-oil energy production.

More proof the "Republican" party is on the fast track to self destruction and damage America in the process.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

We've hit diminishing returns. I'm done on this topic unless something new comes up.

Thanks for playing!

 

[citizenzen]

We've hit diminishing returns. I'm done on this topic unless something new comes up.

Thanks for playing!

"Diminishing returns"?

As in me just pointing out the weakness of your argument, using the very same source you used, but not cherry picking one small nugget like you did?

I could see why you'd see the returns as diminishing.

It's getting harder and harder for you to claim any victories.

 

[krravi]

Wow, talk about ignorance! According to the Bible, the earth is nearly 6,000 years old!

Oh my! I was off by 4000 years?

 

[tgara]

The IPCC's 2013 Report, CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 — The Physical Science Basis is available to anyone who wishes to download a 300+mb, 1,5552 page PDF.

It is available here along with an executive summary: http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

On page 1055, there is a table that lays out four projections to the end of 2100.

Projections to the end of 2100? You do realize this is ridiculous and nobody believes it, right?

 

[Renzatic]

Projections to the end of 2100? You do realize this is ridiculous and nobody believes it, right?

No one's claiming it'll be 100% accurate (hence the reason why they probably made 4 graphs), but all it's doing is looking at current trends and future environmental stressors and extrapolating from that. There's no voodoo science or wild mass guessing or anything like that. It's just basic analyzing and statistics.

 

[citizenzen]

Projections to the end of 2100? You do realize this is ridiculous and nobody believes it, right?

Define "nobody".

I already quoted the IPCC an intergovernmental body ... that's not "nobody". The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change — signed by 190 nations ... that's not "nobody".

But here's what you own government, the EPA has to say about it ...

Key Global Projections

• Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions, and the outcomes from various climate models.
• By 2100, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much as it has during the last 100 years.
• Ground-level air temperatures are expected to continue to warm more rapidly over land than oceans.
• Some parts of the world are projected to see larger temperature increases than the global average.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

NASA ...

NASA - Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes

PASADENA, Calif. – By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type – such as forest, grassland or tundra – toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.

To study the sensitivity of Earth's ecological systems to climate change, the scientists used a computer model that predicts the type of plant community that is uniquely adapted to any climate on Earth. This model was used to simulate the future state of Earth's natural vegetation in harmony with climate projections from 10 different global climate simulations. These simulations are based on the intermediate greenhouse gas scenario in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. That scenario assumes greenhouse gas levels will double by 2100 and then level off. The U.N. report's climate simulations predict a warmer and wetter Earth, with global temperature increases of 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 4 degrees Celsius) by 2100, about the same warming that occurred following the Last Glacial Maximum almost 20,000 years ago, except about 100 times faster. Under the scenario, some regions become wetter because of enhanced evaporation, while others become drier due to changes in atmospheric circulation.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate20111214.html

MIT ...

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

 

[.Andy]

"http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues

["http://www.thegwpf.org/nasa-noaa-confirm-global-temperature-standstill-continues

Whilst I applaud your attempts to distance yourself from the heartland institute and it's paid lackeys, you've really done no better with gwpf.

Again it's a group run by a non-scientist, in this case a british conservative politician. And not just any conservative british politician - this one is nigella lawson (the tv cook's) father and has business ties with coal-fired power plants. He is a champion of conservative values in trying to charge british taxpayers £16 000 by lying about his home. Ian pilmer on the academic advisory committee is another climate change denier who earns hundreds of thousands of dollars per year with his mining ties including coal. You've picked another terrible source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nigel_Lawson

We've hit diminishing returns.

You hit that when you limited yourself to conservative think tank, coal and petroleum funded, non-scientific blogs for your understanding of science.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Whilst I applaud your attempts to distance yourself from the heartland institute and it's paid lackeys, you've really done no better with gwpf.

Where did I say I was distancing myself from the Heartland Institute?

I must insist you provide that quote or I'll report you for trolling.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

"Diminishing returns"?

As in me just pointing out the weakness of your argument, using the very same source you used, but not cherry picking one small nugget like you did?

I could see why you'd see the returns as diminishing.

It's getting harder and harder for you to claim any victories.

I was just impressed that you supplied some facts. Good for you!

 

[gopnick]

I'm a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings. I believe that climate change is real, but I don't believe that humans are the cause.

I also support Tim Cook 100% on this.

• Doing the right thing isn't always profitable, and some degree of philanthropy is appropriate for those blessed with much. Doing it voluntarily is key--and that's something Apple is doing and that's something about which conservatives ought to be happy!
• You can't put a price tag on brand loyalty, which is what this inspires. (Well, I guess technically you can; but only in hindsight.)
• The organization that made this request is fully within their rights to make that request, and Cook is fully within his to reject it. Those folks can go dump their stock on the open market, and I'm sure Apple will take a penny hit on the stock price -- something they've NEVER cared about before, and I don't expect them to worry about now.

 

[urbanslaughter1997]

Tim Cook is likely a true believing moron but the above post is correct. Apple has or thinks it has a customer base that is motivated by such things as this. Apples actual demographic has probably diverged since the iPhone and there are an incredible number of people who put such politics (agree or disagree) so low that it never impacts purchasing decisions. I cannot imagine caring how Apple wants to spend chump change like this when buying a phone.

The bigger problem is that is more evidence of Cook being a decent manager but lacking vision. It's not vision when you do what's trendy and popular where you live - that's status quo. Cook is a status quo guy. He continues to say and do things that worry me for the future of Apple. I don't own stock but I like great stuff and I want a future where there is more not less. Cook is not the man to recognize great stuff.

----------



Math and common sense says you are wrong. Solar cells have incredible niche uses but are not very cost effective. Or else we would all use them. Duh.

----------



Someone who won't put other people's money where their mouth is.

Isn't this basically what a libertarian is?

Um, you're obviously using a different kind of math and a different kind of common sense than the rest of us. Just saying something doesn't make it so. My math works and so does my common sense. Yours . . . well, I have no evidence of it being used, so it's hard for me to judge, except to note that your results come out wrong, so that implies a failure in your math and common sense.

 

[aarond12]

Putting forth a proposal for ROI above all else is hardly a conservative or liberal virtue.
...
This so called-conserative group was advocating nothing really.

Their website says otherwise. They flaunt how they are conservative and that climate change is a myth.

 

[Smith288]

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...

I'd hate for metaphors to be lost on you...

 

[hulugu]

...

I think we'll bring this bit of embarrassment for you to a close....

So, the site is valuable as a source because it's popular, Times Magazine liked it, and it won some awards?

The New York Times carries each of the above, so how valuable is the newspaper as a source in comparison with "What's Up with That?"

 

[citizenzen]

WUWT won the Bloggies in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for best science blog, and in 2013 for best weblog overall.

I first thought it was just an eye roller that you'd try to puff up your denier website by talking about how it's won so many "best science blog" awards ... a low bar if I'd ever heard one. But then I decided to look into the Bloggies, as I'd never heard of them and thought I needed more background on this.

It turns out that Bloggies are determined by popular vote.

But that's odd, because earlier you complained about science by consensus ...

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.

Yet here you are trumpeting a blog's scientific veracity simply because it received the most online votes.

It would appear that now you're for consensus, when before you were against it.

That seems like a flip-flop. If you don't agree, please explain why.

It was recognized by The Times as one of the top 30 science blogs of 2009.

OMG! The New York Times voted wattsupwiththat.com one of the top 30 science blogs of 2009?

Oh wait. it wasn't The New York Times.

It wasn't Time magazine. It wasn't even the Washington Times.

It was The Times Literary Supplement, http://timesonline.typepad.com, a blog.

That bar keeps getting lower ... and lower.

 

[.Andy]

OMG! The New York Times voted wattsupwiththat.com one of the top 30 science blogs of 2009?

Oh wait. it wasn't The New York Times.

It wasn't Time magazine. It wasn't even the Washington Times.

It was The Times Literary Supplement, http://timesonline.typepad.com, a blog.

That bar keeps getting lower ... and lower.

Haha this is hilarious ! Just when you thought climate denial couldn't get any worse. How embarrassing.

 

[Renzatic]

Haha this is hilarious ! Just when you thought climate denial couldn't get any worse. How embarrassing.

Yeah...well...uh...care to cite your sources stating that it's wrong? Huh? Huh? HUH?

That's what I thought. I WIN!

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

So, the site is valuable as a source because it's popular, Times Magazine liked it, and it won some awards?

The New York Times carries each of the above, so how valuable is the newspaper as a source in comparison with "What's Up with That?"

Well, since you can't be bothered to read the relevant posts, I should ignore your post.

But I never said the site was valuable because it was popular, etc. I was responding to an absurd posting claiming it wasn't a valid site because it was unreliable:

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

Quote:
Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary." "There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts", wrote David Suzuki.

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.

----------

Haha this is hilarious ! Just when you thought climate denial couldn't get any worse. How embarrassing.

Ah, the AGW faithful glee club gets together to chortle over postings taken out of context.

Imagine my surprise.

 

[citizenzen]

Ah, the AGW faithful glee club gets together to chortle over postings taken out of context.

Imagine my surprise.

Well then, take a moment and provide the context.

 

[Boisv]

Steve would be proud.

 

[bradl]

Well, since you can't be bothered to read the relevant posts, I should ignore your post.

But I never said the site was valuable because it was popular, etc. I was responding to an absurd posting claiming it wasn't a valid site because it was unreliable:

Funny.. you take the argument I used on you that you weren't able to disprove, and try to use it as ammo against someone else for the same reason it was used on you? And you couldn't even give proper source to the person that burned you with it.

Imagine my surprise...

Any of the miniscule amount of credibility you even believed you had is now gone, especially since with this post, you admit that your own source is unreliable.

That makes every other post you have in this thread, as well as your arguments, meaningless at the least, and farcical at the most. There is no further use in arguing with you on this, because you can't even keep your story, your sources, and the accuracy of both in check.

BL.