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

[citizenzen]

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?

As a graphic designer with over 20 years of professional experience, I would never use Comic Sans on a press release.

That font choice doesn't reinforce a sense of credibility in an organization.

However, if I were designing a birthday card for a four year-old, Comic Sans would be an excellent font for that occasion.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

Like I said: you vs. all the world's scientists.

Are they wrong?

Is your ego smarter than them?

I can't figure out which logical fallacy best fits your argument.

Given your reverence for consensus in place of factual evidence, probably Argumentum ad populum fits the bill, but your attempts to shut down debate because you think more scientists agree with you (something you've yet to prove) Argumentum ab auctoritate works too.

----------

As a graphic designer with over 20 years of professional experience, I would never use Comic Sans on a press release.

That font choice doesn't reinforce a sense of credibility in an organization.

However, if I were designing a birthday card for a four year-old, Comic Sans would be an excellent font for that occasion.

I'm a graphic designer too and I wouldn't use Comic Sans on a news release. Yet some people like Comic Sans despite your and my superior sense of style (including designers at Time Magazine and the BBC). But then most people's taste is in their mouths.

 

[citizenzen]

Given your reverence for consensus in place of factual evidence ...

That would be assuming that there is no factual evidence behind the consensus.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

That would be assuming that there is no factual evidence behind the consensus.

Where did I say there was no factual evidence behind the consensus? They have facts, just not enough of them to predict what the climate will do as events have proved.

 

[sixrom]

I'm starting to like the guy

I've always been a strong believer in Tim Cook.

If we set aside the various issues both positive and negative, anyone following Steve Jobs has a hell of a challenge on their hands. Facing that alone takes a very strong, intelligent, seasoned professional.

I give Tim Cook high marks.

 

[ChoMomma]

Where did I say there was no factual evidence behind the consensus? They have facts, just not enough of them to predict what the climate will do as events have proved.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...elieve-in-global-warming-here-are-the-results

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

[citizenzen]

Where did I say there was no factual evidence behind the consensus? They have facts, just not enough of them to predict what the climate will do as events have proved.

You said "Given your reverence for consensus in place of factual evidence ..."

This is consensus grounded in factual evidence.

Thus not a logical fallacy.

 

[thasan]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...elieve-in-global-warming-here-are-the-results

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

does that 3% represents 'american moron society' ?
its amazing to see such a huge agreement on something among scientists. i hope those 3% are sent to live on the sinking islands of the Maldives.

 

[Renzatic]

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?

Remember when I said that a worst case global warming scenario would be an environment roughly akin to the Jurassic? The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 6 times higher than it is now. The average global temperature was 16C, roughly 3 degrees higher than it is now.

That one degree might not sound like much. I mean hell, the outside temp can raise as much as 3C on a cold winter day. 1 degree isn't much, right? Not when we're talking about a global average. For that average to raise by a single degree, it means that environmental conditions have had to have changed drastically. 1 degree isn't good. 3 degrees, which is the amount the scientific community is dead set on avoiding at all costs, could be catastrophic.

A 1 degree rise in global temperature over the last 100 years is a pretty big deal.

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.

From what I understand of that (admittedly not much), you can't use it as a justification that we're on a natural climate upswing due to the sudden severe rise we've seen over the last 100 years. Instead of a gradual slope, you're looking at a spike that begins around the start of the 20th century.

This is all I could find on it from a quick 2 minute search. Not much, but it's the NOAA, and it backs up its assertions with plenty of links.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

So when the hospital turns the NCPPR dude's machine off because there simply isn't enough profit in treating him, he should be overjoyed.

 

[mozumder]

Where did I say there was no factual evidence behind the consensus? They have facts, just not enough of them to predict what the climate will do as events have proved.

Like I said, your job is to tell the class why they aren't on your side then.

If they were rational people, then they would agree with your immense facts, right? So maybe all these scientists are irrational and crazy? And you are correct?

Or perhaps all these scientists around the world are evil, and have a hidden agenda? Or maybe they just want more money?

So, feel free to explain why all the world's scientists are disagreeing with your position.

The reason I ask you to do this is because the public places their trust in science, and not political activists like you.

You need to do a better job of explaining why we shouldn't trust scientists.

Otherwise, the only thing we see is that your ego is driving you into the ground.

Learn to fight your ego.

Be modest.

Don't be boastful.

Respect what others have decided and researched and reviewed.

Don't disagree with them because your ego causes you to feel superior.

 

[coolspot18]

heavily liberal and socially conscious

I don't think Mac users are really all that socially conscious - the ones that think they are aren't all that conscious in the whole grand scheme of things.

 

[john123]

Jeez, man. Your own source (SkepticalScience) agrees there's been a pause

Actually, both of you seem confused by basic statistical concepts like variance. The frequency with which people on both sides of the climate change debate get everything wrong when it comes to statistical significance is both sad and shocking.

 

[bluespark]

Not a chance... Rush Limbaugh is Apple's biggest fan. In fact, the majority of Mac users I know are quite conservative.

But this whole exchange only tells me Cook was "had" and might not even be the right guy for the job. A more adroit CEO (and let's not forget Cook should be the most adroit heading up about the biggest outfit on earth) would have claimed that Apple undertakes all of these other endeavors precisely because it IS good for business. End of discussion from him.

And really, if Apple didn't care about profits, everything we buy from them would cost a whole bunch less. They would be doing the socially conscience thing to provide great products that everyone can afford at ridiculously low prices.

To say that Apple undertakes all of its endeavors because they are good for business would be a different point from what Tim was making. He was explicitly rejecting the concept that everything a corporation does has to be in the interest of the shareholders' bottom line. Based on what he actually said, he has no interest in being the "more adroit CEO" you imagine.

That's not to say that Apple doesn't care about profits -- it obviously does. But there is a difference between caring about profits and mandating that every corporate action be linked directly to profits.

 

[MacinDoc]

Like I said: you vs. all the world's scientists.

Are they wrong?

Is your ego smarter than them?

Some who quote without citation the opinion of "all the world's scientists" haven't actually asked all the world's scientists. Fortunately, one peer-reviewed scientific journal has. Even the IPCC has admitted that there has been no significant increase in mean global temperature in the past 17 years, in direct contradiction with its earlier models. The co-founder of Greenpeace yesterday told a committee of the U.S. Senate that "there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years". The unanimity of the scientific community regarding the causative relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and global climate change has been greatly overstated, and those who have disagreed have been silenced and bullied. Part of the problem is funding and publication bias: due to the current political climate (sorry, couldn't resist), only studies that support the theory of global climate change attributable to human CO2 emissions get funded and published. I suspect that this will likely change (sorry, there I go again) as ongoing evidence continues to fail to support the alarmist models.

Now, this is not to say that there is no such thing as global climate change. In fact, the only thing that remains the same in global climate is that it is constantly changing; there is always either warming or cooling, except at the very moment when a warming trend changes to a cooling trend or vice versa, but there is no such thing as sustained global thermal/climate homeostasis. However, the extent of change historically has never been more than about 5 degrees C, even in historic periods in which CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today (from the Greenpeace article).

Personally, I think we should be more concerned about emissions of pollutants like sulfur dioxide, organic pollutants and other environmental toxins, which have clearly been shown to damage the environment, both locally and in more distant places where such pollutants travel by air or water.

 

[Solomani]

Leave Comic Sans alone, you barbarians!!

It was my favorite eWorld font. Leave it in peace!

 

[Poisednoise]

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​

The planet has been disapproving their theories for 15+ years. CO2 continues to increase yet temperatures have remained steady:

While it's predictable that this argument has devolved into a fight over the truth or otherwise of climate change, it's worth remembering that ultimately, what's important is that Apple's image is a very important part of its profitability, and that's what Tim was protecting, and what the NCPRR was ignoring.

That said, I have two points regarding the above quote:

1. If you're going to quote articles, it's always a good idea to read said article. If you read the whole thing it becomes very clear that the Met Office is in no way suggesting that it believes global warming to be a fallacious concept, rather that they are looking for reasons for what could be perceived to be a short-term anomaly in the results. Indeed, you wouldn't have needed to read the whole article (although I have); the very first paragraph of the main body of the article reads as follows:

The recent pause in global surface warming is shown in Figure 1 in the context of historical observations. Following a period of rapid warming since the 1970s1, there has been little further warming of the surface, particularly over the ocean in the most recent 10 to 15 years. As discussed in the first paper in this series, there is substantial evidence from other components of the climate system, beyond the global mean surface temperature, that the Earth has continued to warm over the last decade.

(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF : page 6)

"There is substantial evidence from other components of the climate system, beyond the global mean surface temperature, that the Earth has continued to warm over the last decade." Just thought maybe I should repeat that bit there.

2. You say "The planet has been disapproving their theories for 15+ years." I'm not sure even the most avid of climate change scientists advocate the anthropomorphism of a large lump of rock. That said, were the Earth capable of an opinion, I suspect it would disapprove, most strongly, of what we've been doing to it over the last 150 years or so...
(I think you meant "disprove". You're still wrong though, as the UK Met Office so kindly point out)

 

[MacinDoc]

Actually, both of you seem confused by basic statistical concepts like variance. The frequency with which people on both sides of the climate change debate get everything wrong when it comes to statistical significance is both sad and shocking.

It is improbable that any amount of random variation could for 17 straight years cause an annual increase in the deviation between actual temperatures recorded and the predicted logarithmic increase in the rate at which global temperatures would rise, according to the hockey stick model popularized and often cited by the IPCC and its supporters. The probability that the deviation from the model is caused by random variation decreases with every passing year, and the probability that the model and the assumptions on which it is based are incorrect continue to increase.

At some point, the IPCC's models and assertions should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that is expected of peer-reviewed science. I'm no climatologist, so I can't say whether 17 years is enough time for a climate model to be proved or disproved, but when the global warming debate began, a number of experts in the area argued that a period of 10 to 15 years was required to separate the effects of global warming from random noise. As the period from 1995 to 2012 was 17 years, the time that the original model's proponents said would be required to prove the model has passed.

I think that at this point, the jury's still out on global climate change. As further evidence comes forward in the next few years, it should greatly clarify the issue for everyone. I just hate it when a theory or model ends up being taken as fact prior to having sufficient evidence to support it (admittedly, in western medicine, we have been doing this for decades, but we are getting better, having ever-increasing expectations that our investigations and treatments be evidence-based).

 

[Lesser Evets]

Reading this entry, it seemed logically disjointed. It was obfuscated by extraneous data... until I cut it down to this:

... asked the company to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs, such as solar energy facilities...

That's what it is ultimately about. Investors wonder where their money is going. Apple should disclose the info to investors, no matter what the further outcome or conclusions are.

To disclose such information made Cook go ballistic? Sounds like something fishy is going on behind the curtain.

 

[Kabeyun]

I'm sorry. WHAT? They make these things to make profits. These products were pursued because they are highly profitable. Don't act like Apple made the iPhone and didn't expect it to be a gold mine. If it weren't for the iPhone and iPad, Apple probably wouldn't exist anymore.

If you knew anything about Apple, you'd know that building the better mousetrap is what drives them. Steve Jobs wanted to revolutionize the human technology experience. The company that churns out plastic party favors is focused only on profit.

 

[TC03]

Good for him.

What the guy from NCPPR is probably too stupid to realize is that a huge part of Apple's financial success is related to its image. Apple already takes a beating for any perceived human rights or environmental transgressions, precisely because its user base tends to skew so heavily liberal and socially conscious. If the company were to suddenly start placing profits above all else, how do you think this demographic would react? Of course, aside from any financial considerations, I really respect Cook for taking a stand on this.

You're right, but the way you're phrasing it, it's about the ROI after all.

I honestly believe Cook would have had the same reaction if all the things you mentioned weren't true.

 

[osx11]

STOP calling it Global Warming and call it what it really is: Climate Change!

Fact 1: The mean temperature is slowly rising
Fact 2: We are producing CO2 in unimaginable amounts, and it is unhealthy
Fact 3: As the average temperature increases, there is more energy within our climate
Fact 4: This increased energy can lead to more extreme weather, be it hot, cold, wet, dry etc......

Even if we ignore climate change and simply focus on smog and unhealthy concentrations of CO2 in our air, we should, as rational beings, realize that this is a non-sustainable trend for US.

I think George Carlin said it best: "The planet isn't going anywhere! We are!"

I don't know why this so difficult to understand. We should not view this as saving the planet but as saving US, our lives, and our childrens' lives. Even if we ignore temperatures and just look at emissions that we are emitting, it only makes sense to make a healthy planet that will make life more enjoyable for us.

 

[.Andy]

Some who quote without citation the opinion of "all the world's scientists" haven't actually asked all the world's scientists. Fortunately, one peer-reviewed scientific journal has.

First of all you've linked to two op-ed pieces as references from James taylor, a heartland institute conservative hack paid by exxonmobil. If you think he is a objective source of information I have a bridge to sell you. I'm amazed you didn't stop to check your sources when you quoted the same hack twice

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Taylor

Secondly the original paper doesn't claim anything of the sort. All it would take is a quick read and you'd find that it doesn't support what you say. In fact it supports the opposite - that those with a vested interest in carbon emissions such as petroleum workers are more likely to reject the science.

Please read the paper http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

Even the IPCC has admitted that there has been no significant increase in mean global temperature in the past 17 years, in direct contradiction with its earlier models.

This is also a straight out lie by james taylor and something regurgitated amongst denialists. The IPCC predictions have firmed since 1990. They are going from strength to strength.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

 

[ScottishDuck]

I can only hope apple accelerates share buyback and goes private. Ditch the shareholders entirely.

 

[JoEw]

Lumping everyone together just shows a closed mind. There are conservatives who do care about the environment and social issues. Heck, we wouldn't have our national parks or EPA if not for 2 republican presidents. Yes, there are right wing whackos who only care about money. One could lump all democrats into the socialist regime. Obviously that is not true either. There are plenty of democrats that are pro business. There are also left wing whackos. The unfortunate part, is that the only ones left running the country in DC are the whackos, whether they are left or right winged.

I don't know what politics you follow, but the parties defiantly are not equally full of whackos, lick up the tea party, Ted Cruz rand Paul.. Are there no left wing ones? Of course there are I personally don't like nancy p. but you can not say that the two parties as of now are both equally crazy..