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
I was on that page for awhile and read a good amount of their posts. My post was spot on about them and the kind of awful organization they are. They spew misinformation to people who lack critical thinking skills. They also most likely watch Fox News and treat ferrets badly and would micturate on a perfectly good rug.
No that's actually exactly how conservative are. Like back when they stripped all consumer protections from private student loans.That's a perfect example of conservatives hurting the country to improve corporate profits at all cost.
The sooner NCPPR DIAF, the better.
You go Timmy. Keep Lassie on the leash and drop the NCPPR down the nearest dry well.
You go Timmy. Keep Lassie on the leash and drop the NCPPR down the nearest dry well.
The "ideology" you support pushes an agenda that does not reflect reality:
Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013.
UK Met Office
UK Met Office
The planet has been disapproving their theories for 15+ years. CO2 continues to increase yet temperatures have remained steady:
Even the IPCC has had to admit that the Earth's climate sensitivity is not as fragile as those scientists pushing the Catastrophic AGW theory would have us believe:
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 1.3 Cº.
WattsUpWithThat
WattsUpWithThat
----------
Trolling
"Slurs and insults against groups of people based on negative-stereotyping and obvious generalizations fall into the category of trolling and will be treated as such."
Your post slammed an organization without providing any evidence to back up your opinion.
For the second time, I'm asking you to correct your post.
----------
Ah, I thought you'd read the post and were making the Comic Sans comment without attribution.
It's so hip to hate Comic Sans. I guess you think Time Magazine and the BBC are uncool too, huh?
----------
So you're not going to cite anything factual to back up your opinion? Last try.
Now, I need you to tell the class why, with your amazing, overwhelming evidence, that scientists STILL don't support your theories.
Go on! You're a smart guy! You MUST be smarter than all the scientists, right? Maybe all those scientists are dumb, corrupt, evil people with personal agendas, right? You know more than them, obviously, so it should be easy to prove them wrong.
I posted a link to their Facebook page as my proof of them being an awful organization. The content of that page is factual proof of them being such.
Go there and read, that is proof. I don't care to spread their misinformation on MacRumors forums.
Care to respond to what I posted? 15 years of paused global warming is what I claimed, backed up by the UK Met Office. Got facts to refute that?
You were right in regards to a pause, as you can see by the leveling off of the graph between the 40's and the 80's, but the recent spike from the 80's on directly refutes your claim that it happened over the last 15 years.
My my. So many words, yet so little factual content.
Are you claiming that I'm wrong? Come on! You're a smart guy, make a stand and show me up if you can.
Impress us all with your knowledge.
Wallstreet hates Cook. They want a pliable puppet so they can get at the cash. Good job Tim!!! Tell the sharks to stuff it!!!
Excuse me? That didn't compute.
Last 15 years is exactly what I meant and provided a cite proving it. Why not cite something that actually disproves my facts and we'll proceed.
From your link:
2. Understanding the potential cause of the recent pause in global
surface temperature rise.
There are two main ways to explain the recent surface temperature behaviour; firstly, through
changes in the net amount of incoming energy to the climate system (radiative forcing) or,
secondly, through redistribution of energy within the climate system, particularly through
exchange between the upper and deep ocean, which can temporarily hide the warming
below the surface. Both explanations have been put forward in the literature. For instance,
several studies (e.g. Solomon et al 2010, 2011, Church et al 2011) have considered potential
radiative forcing explanations, while others (e.g. Knight et al 2009, Meehl et al 2011,
Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011) have examined the potential ocean heat redistribution.
The sad truth is the oceans are a great heat sink and are absorbing a lot of surface heat. This is one of the reasons we have been having such extreme storms here in the U.S. This is also one of the big engines in CLIMATE CHANGE. When the oceans warm they carry the increased temperatures via currents causing more disruptive weather patterns.
The goddamn graph I posted disputes your claim. But if you want more...
Here
Here
Here
None of these three articles state that we saw a leveling in temperature from '85 on like you're claiming.
edit: Hell, here's one even better for you.
Last edited:
Why aren't you upset that scientists don't know why the planet isn't warming in the face of increasing CO2? They predicted that temps would be much higher given the current circumstances, yet you don't hold their feet to the fire for not understanding the process. Obviously their GCMs weren't adequately modeling the real world just as skeptics claimed. How fortunate that the Kyoto Protocol fizzled or we'd have wasted umpteen billions on poor science.
There are multiple excuses that scientists are giving to explain the pause including low solar activity; the deep oceans are getting the excess heat; reducing CFCs caused the pause; volcanic aerosols are causing cooling; slower Pacific trade winds are responsible, etc. (WattsUpWithThat) But none of them has been proven correct. In the meantime, they keep getting it wrong, yet you guys keep giving them do-overs. That's not science, more like faith.
----------
Before I spend any time on your cites (I will get around to them, I assure you), you should know that the 15 years I'm talking about stretch from about 1997 to the present, not 1985. Why do you keep insisting on that date?
Explain to me this...why do you think hundreds of thousands of scientists are so desperate to prove what is, to you, an untenable theory? Do you think they're stupid or something, and only a chosen few are willing to go against the tide of popular opinion to give us The Truth?
----------
You wanted me to give you proof contrary to your claim that there hasn't been a warming trend in the last 15 years. I did. I gave you proof of a warming trend over the last 30.
I've never been more in love with Apple.
I'm not liberalmore of a moderate who leans conservative on certain issues and libertarian on others. But what pisses me off is when conservatives only focus on climate change. You can argue all day long about what is causing climate change (for example I just read yesterday that they think an increase in volcanic activity is causing global warming to stop), but you can never argue that using highly toxic components is good for our planet. Profits are worthless if the world becomes uninhabitable. I just had my first kid recently and I'll be damned if I don't do my part to make the world she grows up in a better place.
His comment about accessibility was amazing. He buried that guy. There is so much more to life than money. The fact that Apple understands this, spends their money responsibly on these initiatives, and still continues to rake in huge amounts of cash is astounding. Makes me want to go buy something from them right now. If only they would update the Thunderbolt Display!
I'm not liberalmore of a moderate who leans conservative on certain issues and libertarian on others. But what pisses me off is when conservatives only focus on climate change. You can argue all day long about what is causing climate change (for example I just read yesterday that they think an increase in volcanic activity is causing global warming to stop), but you can never argue that using highly toxic components is good for our planet. Profits are worthless if the world becomes uninhabitable. I just had my first kid recently and I'll be damned if I don't do my part to make the world she grows up in a better place.
His comment about accessibility was amazing. He buried that guy. There is so much more to life than money. The fact that Apple understands this, spends their money responsibly on these initiatives, and still continues to rake in huge amounts of cash is astounding. Makes me want to go buy something from them right now. If only they would update the Thunderbolt Display!
I'm not, it's science.. i'm sure they would all be happy to be disproved.
I don't expect you to understand what science is or how it works. It's okay, now close the browser window and go back to watching Fox News and believing the absolute rubbish they spew.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. 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.
Michael Crichton
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.
Michael Crichton
----------
Jeez, man. Your own source (SkepticalScience) agrees there's been a pause:
After a rapid rise in global surface air temperatures during the late 1970s to 1990s, the rate of global warming in the last decade or so has slowed.
You're the one fighting a losing battle against The Truth here.
----------
So you've got nothing. That's OK.
Okay, you got me. See that little dip in the top of dannyyankou's graph that closely mirrors the ones I've posted for your benefit? There's your pause.
Notice how it doesn't dip below the lowest point in the 90's? Even though we experienced a decade low dip between 2000 and 2010, it's only relative. Absolute temperatures are still higher than they were in the late 19th century.
Ultimately, you're arguing the niggling details while ignoring the giant picture staring you right in the face.
----------
That applies more to you than it does to me. I'm arguing the raw data, you're arguing from a political platform.
I think we have a tea party duck in the discussion, in the wild they are seen to be impervious to reason or logic while claiming all the while to be using it.
Like I said: you vs. all the world's scientists.
Are they wrong?
Is your ego smarter than them?
Some points to ponder:
1. The most that CO2, by itself, can raise temperatures after doubling its concentration in the atmosphere from what it was at the start of the industrial age is...wait for it...1°C
You really think the climate is so sensitive that it would go haywire because of a 1° increase in temps taking place over more than a century?
2. We had the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago, so the steadily increasing temperatures since then may simply be the climate returning to the higher temps found during the Holocene climatic optimum.
- Status