Tim Cook says businesses should tackle climate change & equal rights proactively, not wait for gover

1235712

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 227
    Smog is not evidence of "climate change", it's just a pollutant. "Climate change" is a theory supported by politicians and businesses which would benefit from passing onorous restrictions on pollution which the vast majority of the world's population would ignore. It's a byproduct of the "idle rich" and political meddlers.
    These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change. You can spin your conspiracy theories if you like, but the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not. Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area. If you can travel out there, go on a run, feel the wheezing, them come back to me we can talk about your consiracy theory.
  • Reply 82 of 227
    pmcd wrote: »

    I don't know one way or another regarding the climate/temperature/global warming/end of the world/... issues that are being debated in such an illogical way. The whole topic has been co-opted by interest groups and now companies such as Apple. It is almost impossible to obtain unbiased information on the topic from scientists since there is so much noise being generated on all sides of the issue. What we need is to tone down the debate, start listening to the scientists who study this and not the Gore's nor the Apple's of the world. There appears to be an issue with CO2 density as well as problems with the ozone layer not related to that. The suggestion to go carbon free is absurd as is the tendency to cover the land with these giant concrete windmills and solar farms. We need some real scientific advances to tackle the problems. This won't come about by destroying the economy with wishful thoughts of quaint windmills and solar panels.

    In any case, I think Mr. Cook should be replaced. His use of the CEO position of Apple to pursue social changes seems to me not what a CEO should be doing. We have political processes for that. Of course it is up to the shareholders to deal with the issue of what the CEO should be up to. He's fortunate Apple is riding an in time with the iPhone. If that were to change I doubt he'd be in quite the same position to be circumventing the political process.

    As far as I can tell, and I am no expert, is the only way to generate enough power for our society is nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil, coal. They all have issues. Hydro usually involves destroying a lot the natural geography for dam construction, nuclear has a storage problem, carbon based fuels emit CO2 and apparently we don't have enough trees or processes to balance that.
    Tim Cook basically rebuffed your stereotypical comment and said go invest somewhere else if you don't like it. It's Corporate Responsibility on steroids and the money is coming in faster than ever. The Internet thanks you for playing, and Apple made a quarter of a trillion dollars last fiscal year. The writing is on the wall.
  • Reply 83 of 227
    Cook is crossing a line into Gore's carbon credit nonsense!  Cook should stick to defending our freedoms like with strong end-to-end encryption, not this crack pot mission of Gore the snake oil salesman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-classroom-education-or-indoctrination-part-1-why-al-gore-doesn’t-bel

    https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/al-gore-and-friends-create-climate-mccarthyism

    Groan. Not the Heartland Instittute. They're a bunch of loons.

    Wait....
  • Reply 84 of 227
    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post

    These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change.

     

    All gasses trap heat.

     

    You can spin your conspiracy theories...


     

    The conspiracy theory is that man is meaningfully affecting Earth’s climate.

     

    ...the environment is an issue that needs to be addressed...


     

    Which is why I want Apple to actually care about the environment, not spew this nonsense.

     

    .regardless of whether you believe scientific consensus or not.


     

    1. There is no such consensus.

    2. Consensus is not truth.

     

    Even if there is no such thing as climate change the smog is a huge, pressing issue in the Ls Angekes area.


     

    Yes, and should be mitigated. I read once that China’s pollution is responsible for a significant fraction of what LA experiences. Is that true? 

  • Reply 85 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post

    These carbon emissions get trapped and damage the ozone layer, thus contributing to climate change.

     

    All gasses trap heat.


     

    That's not correct, in the context of this discussion at least. Only gases that have significant absorption in the thermal infrared region of the spectrum trap heat by this mechanism. Nitrogen and oxygen - the major constituents of the atmosphere, do not.

  • Reply 86 of 227
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Nitrogen and oxygen - the major constituents of the atmosphere, do not.




    So Earth wouldn’t be colder–same distance–without its atmosphere? Mars wouldn’t be warmer with a thicker atmosphere of any given composition?

  • Reply 87 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Groan. Not the Heartland Instittute. They're a bunch of loons.



    Wait....

     

    An ad hominem attack instead of presenting facts?  You are not credible, just calling names makes no persuasive debate.

     

    Heartland presents a ton of fact-based information about Gore's farce, which is why all should look into their information.

  • Reply 88 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Nitrogen and oxygen - the major constituents of the atmosphere, do not.




    So Earth wouldn’t be colder–same distance–without its atmosphere? Mars wouldn’t be warmer with a thicker atmosphere of any given composition?




    Remember that the only significant heat loss mechanism from a planet is thermal infrared radiation. There is, obviously, no conduction, convection or any other transport mechanism available.

     

    An atmosphere only affects the rate of radiative loss if it absorbs the thermal radiation emitted from the surface. Nitrogen and oxygen do not - carbon dioxide and water vapor, together with other trace gases such as methane, do. So, if the earth's atmosphere were only nitrogen and oxygen then correct - it would have little effect on thermal equilibrium and the earth would not be colder than with no atmosphere at all, although it would be around 30 °C colder than with our actual atmosphere.

     

    The 30 °C difference is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that do absorb some of the thermal IR radiation. Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents, which is why relatively small changes in those gas concentrations makes a big difference. 

  • Reply 89 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post





    I suppose somehow California was the one vast array of land that was excluded from climate change, huh?



    Huh? Did you even read my post? Climate change is happening in California, but it's not due to global warming. The climate is reverting back to what it used to be for thousands of years. 

  • Reply 90 of 227
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents...


     

    And yet that statement is predicated on a lie which does not show up in practice.

     

    Why aren’t leftists more concerned with argon? Argon, which is 24x as prevalent, which serves no purpose to the ecosystem, which is inert, and which has a specific heat nearly the same as CO2?

     

    Shouldn’t we be scrubbing the argon–which is doing no one any good being free–and leaving the CO2 for the plants where it has been shown to be near universally beneficial?

  • Reply 91 of 227
    I read what you said, I just disregarded the attribution you were making, just like you're disregarding mine.
  • Reply 92 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents...


     

    And yet that statement is predicated on a lie which does not show up in practice.

     

    Why aren’t leftists more concerned with argon? Argon, which is 24x as prevalent, which serves no purpose to the ecosystem, which is inert, and which has a specific heat nearly the same as CO2?

     

    Shouldn’t we be scrubbing the argon–which is doing no one any good being free–and leaving the CO2 for the plants where it has been shown to be near universally beneficial?




    Argon is not a greenhouse gas. This has nothing to do with specific heat capacity.

  • Reply 93 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post



    I read what you said, I just disregarded the attribution you were making, just like you're disregarding mine.



    That's fine if you want to disregard the facts. 

  • Reply 94 of 227
    All gasses trap heat.

    The conspiracy theory is that man is meaningfully affecting Earth’s climate.

    Which is why I want Apple to actually care about the environment, not spew this nonsense.

    1. There is no such consensus.
    2. Consensus is not truth.

    Yes, and should be mitigated. I read once that China’s pollution is responsible for a significant fraction of what LA experiences. Is that true? 
    Putting forth the argument you put forward is the same circular logic that can define the same debate about whether God exists or not, which is a woefully draining debate since it's obvious man created the idea of God to help meet his own psychological needs, thus claiming the existence of God is as crazy as insisting that Zeus is indeed the king of all Gods.
  • Reply 95 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Argon is not a greenhouse gas. This has nothing to do with specific heat capacity.




    hint: he will continue to argue with you forever even though he has no fundamental idea what he is talking about

  • Reply 96 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jony0 View Post

     

    Solar energy is a valid stopgap measure for now to replace fossil fuels until the next technology comes online, but pursuing this long term is indeed stupid. They're only around 18% efficient now, even though some new technologies will get a bit more, it's still not viable in the long run, there are better alternatives.




    Graphene, man!

  • Reply 97 of 227
    An ad hominem attack instead of presenting facts?  You are not credible, just calling names makes no persuasive debate.

    Heartland presents a ton of fact-based information about Gore's farce, which is why all should look into their information.

    Lol. You're funny. Ad hominem? From a guy who says things things like "Gore THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN"? :lol:

    In any event, Gore is not a serious climate change scholar, not by a long shot. He dissembles, exaggerates, sometimes even crosses the boundaries of scientific truth. If he's your standard of comparison for the Heartland Institute, you're in some pretty sad company indeed.....

    I think you just shot yourself in the foot.
  • Reply 98 of 227
    Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

    hint: he will continue to argue with you forever even though he has no fundamental idea what he is talking about



    If you have a rebuttal to something I have said, quote me directly and post it.

     

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Argon is not a greenhouse gas.

     

    I just don’t see how that arbitrary definition matters, since all gasses work to retain heat on a body. Also, moving back within that definition...

     

    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post

    Putting forth the argument you put forward is the same circular logic that can define the same debate about whether God exists or not, which is a woefully draining debate since it's obvious man created the idea of God to help meet his own psychological needs, thus claiming the existence of God is as crazy as insisting that Zeus is indeed the king of all Gods.

     

    Literally no words here have anything to do with what we’re discussing.

  • Reply 99 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    Argon is not a greenhouse gas.

     

    I just don’t see how that arbitrary definition matters, since all gasses work to retain heat on a body. Also, moving back within that definition...


     

    Well it matters to the extent that it determines, directly, whether or not the gas in question reduces radiative cooling. In what sense is it arbitrary? It's not arbitrary - it is a simple property that the gas either has or not, depending primarily on whether it has asymmetric inter-atomic bonds.

     

    So no, as I explained, not all gases reduce radiative losses from the planet - the "greenhouse gases" are those that do. You are still confusing radiation with other forms of thermal transport. A blanket of gas has no effect if it is transparent to the infrared radiation. I'm not sure how to explain this any more clearly.

  • Reply 100 of 227
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    That's fine if you want to disregard the facts. 
    Ok Fact Man
Sign In or Register to comment.