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 Introduces 'An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power' At Silicon Valley Film Debut
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
. 
"Oh, maybe educating the world on man made climate change would be a great start. Business needs to get on board with saving the planet. Apple are setting a good example in this regard."
Right from this very article as a post...And there are plenty of others.
Yes, they are. Again, climate changes have been happening LONG before us and WILL continue AFTER us...
Last edited:
None of that seems to say that something is a "sole" factor in it all. The implication seems to be that there is a human factor that appears to be playing a noticeable role this time around, and unlike other factors it is one that is more within potential control or could at least be affected in one way or another.
I really don't understand how you don't get "man-made climate change" as ANYTHING other than blaming humans.
And that you don't understand that climate change has been and will continue to happen without or without US. It's simple as that.
You can believe what you want, it's staring you right in the face and you are actually sitting here and denying it. Astounding.
Again, the implication there is that there is an aspect of climate change that humans have been and are increasingly contributing to and affecting. It's not being presented as the "sole" factor.
Ok. When did I post the quote you replied to? I don't recall posting anything about 33,000 scientists. Weird....
Yeah, right. Climate change is simply another money and power grab like every other "cause" out there. No thanks. If the elite rich want to do their part then sell your mansions, do away with your Lamborghini collection and move into a small apartment. Save the earth. Walk the talk. But no, they expect us to pay enormous energy bills, live on top of one another, take busses, eat crappy food, and lose our jobs. Well, efff you. Suck it.
Sorry to say but if New York City is underwater in 1,000 years I could NOT care less. Not my problem. Of course, it's all BS anyways so it'll never happen but if these clowns expect me to "take one for the team" and crimp my enjoyment of life and all the cool stuff life offers because a few whackos claim doom and gloom....they're sorely mistaken. Nope, no sale. Like i said, when the greenies give up there belongings and wealth then come and talk to me. Starting with Al Gore and most of Hollywood. Thanks.
Sorry to say but if New York City is underwater in 1,000 years I could NOT care less. Not my problem. Of course, it's all BS anyways so it'll never happen but if these clowns expect me to "take one for the team" and crimp my enjoyment of life and all the cool stuff life offers because a few whackos claim doom and gloom....they're sorely mistaken. Nope, no sale. Like i said, when the greenies give up there belongings and wealth then come and talk to me. Starting with Al Gore and most of Hollywood. Thanks.
Pretty much. The biggest problem with the climate change movement (for lack of better name) is that they provide no actual solutions other than to raise costs that, in the end, only serve to lower the living standard of everyone else. Even if I accept without question the absolutely truth and accuracy of all their claims you can count me out. I simply won't be bullied into living a certain way to appease someone else's beliefs. And they really are beliefs because, exactly like religion, believers aren't happy until everyone else believes the same thing. F that.
I've tried to say that several times here. It seems that no one recalls or cares that Gore and his company were trying to SELL SOMETHING when he started all this.
"Reasons to be optimistic about the future"?
Yes, indeed, Trümp's inevitable nuclear/scalar WWIII fixes the world's "America" problem.
So yes, I guess the statement is true after all. Just not for the US.
Yes, indeed, Trümp's inevitable nuclear/scalar WWIII fixes the world's "America" problem.
So yes, I guess the statement is true after all. Just not for the US.
No, but apparently they are to Russia!
Make Russia Great Again?
[doublepost=1488728815][/doublepost]
I would think making computer technology that isn't upgradable is indefensible these days. Hell, for the past 15 years!
The first mac, making it hard to get into was a paranoid attempt at keeping the 'secret sauce' under lock and key. Now, the secret is out, has been for decades, so why the hell make it 'impossible' to upgrade?
I just inherited a MACBOOKPRO11,1 and I 'can't' upgrade the system RAM because APPLE decided sticking it to their users for whatever ridiculous reason was a Great Idea.
If they don't become a lot more 'open', they will find the world will move along without them. Yeah, I know people have said that for years, but as the 'Make America Great' economy starts to tank (yet again) people aren't going to be buying new computers as much as wanting to upgrade the ones that they have, and finding that the splurge MacBook isn't upgradable to keep up with the times is going to be a bitter pill to swallow, and get more bitter over time.
I don't think there is any defense for making systems so closed anymore. I mean, hell, if people break them doing an upgrade, you just tell them 'Sorry. It broke. You did it.' and send them out the door.
It is, but what it means is that we need to improve aspects of government with legislation, not get rid of the government entirely.
Being pessimistic would be logical and helped to approach the critical issue more seriously.
Being pessimistic would more likely lend a hand with just not doing anything about anything as it would seem that nothing would help anyway.
So it's best to be serious, neutral and concentrated on fixing the issue, not pessimistic nor optimistic. The latter, when the signs of global crisis are all around us and it gets worse every year, is just plain idiotic and misleading.
Sure, realistic is best in general. That said, depending on context something more can certainly play a role--in a context of trying to be motivational or encourage some action or something similar along those lines a more optimistic approach aligns more with that goal than a just a plain serious realistic one (or certainly negative pessimistic one).
Not in this case. There are no reason for being optimistic right now. It would more likely lend a hand with just not doing anything about anything as it would seem that problem will be resolved somehow anyway by someone else.
Last edited:
Seems like the realistic thing to be said then is that there are potential up and down sides to any approach it would seem. Doesn't quite make either approach "idiotic" somehow.
True.
I'm talking about this particular case, I don't call optimistic approach idiotic or wrong in general. It is a good thing, but it depends on the situation. When a train rushes at full speed into the wall and someone says: "by all signs we will crash in 5 minutes but we're optimistic about our future", how would you call it?
Well, if placed more in the context of "we are optimistic about our future if we do what we can to deal with it and stick to it" then it seems like it can be a fairly decent take on it.
Some proof that AGW is an actual threat would be refreshing. Not manipulated data giving us another "hottest" year, but an actual prediction that proves AGW is a dire threat would go a long way to convincing people.
As it is, though, AGW has been benign or beneficial.
So you're not really prepared to do any research on existing data and findings and just expect the information to be put in front of you in the form of a pop up book. You should run for president.
That's an animation with some stock footage, not this great pacific plastic patch. Exactly what I was talking about. Again it's weird there are no real pics or even videos of it. Weird that you think this is evidence and not an infomercial. I'm not going to get outraged over cartoons unless its another Samurai Jack delay.
There are few parts of the world where it's too dangerous to pick up liter, but there are lots of areas where people don't care and spend any energy to pick it up. I believe the debate still rages over whether these are social, cultural or economic issues. I just think you're an ******* if you litter, kinda like people who put their used gum under tables. People who can't be bothered to pick it up, seem to be the type of people who can't be bothered to do a lot of things. But I think its immoral to invent hysteria and claim the planet is dying over liter. Pick up your trash seems to be a fine and direct message without all the hype.
[doublepost=1488968471][/doublepost]
Nobody really knows what the hell global temperatures mean, we are an infant species on a tiny rock we barely understand slowly being pulled into a fiery object so large in comparison we can barely conceive its immense size.
We don't even know why we are here. So before you get all high and mighty, war and oil might be THE solution to everything.
Dial your hype back to "we'd like it to be this way", ditch the doom and gloom, then we negotiate like adults from there. But that's not how eco-zealots want it, they want a proclamation of doom, admission of guilt, taxes to pay for oversights and sponsor dubious science programs decided by politicians.
You want energy efficient? Grand-dad had nuclear power, and it's still the most efficient vs amount of waste, but it scares hippies and they block and fear-monger any attempt to build up, change or refine the infrastructure. You should start there, nuclear power plants would be the best bang for you buck, but they will lack the signaling glamour of cutesier, inefficient projects.
[doublepost=1488968978][/doublepost]
In scientific terms: We might be in the early stages of proving something = we got no testable and repeatable hypothesis yet, please keep funding us and maybe we will.
Reality: 99.9999999% of scientific theories are incorrect.
Your choice: Al Gore or the odds.
[doublepost=1488969723][/doublepost]
Read some government legistlation sometime. The problem is clearly government legislation. It takes too long just saying government legislation, that alone eats into productive time, never mind the full text.
Government is fixed by less, more concise legislation. When its convoluted and over-complex, all time is spent arguing over minutia rather than getting anything done. It's easier to change direction than overcome inertia, but that an 'inconvenient truth' to petty partisans.
This is what keeps Rs and Ds in business, playing the world's most gentile game of tug of war ever, while pretending its the most intense gladiatorial combat. This next election battle will decide who gets the slightly cushier gig with slightly heavier workload, while the loser gets a slightly less cushy gig and slightly lighter workload.
Puny humans...
Last edited:
Nuclear energy has its own share of issues mainly the waste. Fusion reactors if they ever work might be a solution. At the moment only renewable energy is an available solution and that is wind, solar, water.