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

13468912

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 227
    wizard69 wrote: »
    The problem with this or of thinking is that the climate changes and has changed dramatically even without the aid of man. Nobody is seriously denying the the climate changes, what is at issue here is mans contribution to that climate change and the proper way to address that contribution. For example wasting massive amounts of land mass, for solar panel collection of electrical energy, is absolute stupidity.

    And drilling into the ground, or even better, the sea floor, is oh so brilliant. And let's not forget the incredible genius that is fracking. But yes, putting up large solar installations in the desert where no one wants to live anyway is stupidity. Uh huh.
  • Reply 102 of 227

    If you have a rebuttal to something I have said, quote me directly and post it. Otherwise shut up. You’re the tiny, low-level mobster in the back of the room who laughs last at the boss’ joke because he had to make sure everyone else was laughing first when you do this.


    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...


    Literally no words here have anything to do with what we’re discussing.
    Wow, such an insightful man. What movie did you steal that from?
  • Reply 103 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     Also, moving back within that definition...


     

    As for that linked article, I'm not sure if I have the stamina to engage it yet again. The premise is the one that we have debated ad nauseam - that the fact that many historical warm periods showed a rise in CO2 as a consequence, not as a precursor. That is to be expected because, if temperatures rise for any reason, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases and so the atmospheric concentration rises. As it happens, due to the greenhouse effect, that produces a positive feedback loop since increased atmospheric CO2 levels decrease radiative losses and push the temperature even higher.

     

    None of that, however, precludes the situation where the rise in atmospheric CO2 level happens first, due, for example, to industrial emissions.

  • Reply 104 of 227
    latifbp wrote: »
    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.

    You're jumping to conclusions. I favor lower emissions and pollutants. They're a health risk that can be mitigated at the state level in the US. The very large scale polluters are in China and India. Talk to them.
  • Reply 105 of 227
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    As it happens, due to the greenhouse effect, that produces a positive feedback loop since increased atmospheric CO2 levels decrease radiative losses and push the temperature even higher.


     

    So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?

     

    None of that, however, precludes the situation where the rise in atmospheric CO2 level happens first, due, for example, to industrial emissions.


     

    And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.

  • Reply 106 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    As it happens, due to the greenhouse effect, that produces a positive feedback loop since increased atmospheric CO2 levels decrease radiative losses and push the temperature even higher.


     

    So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?


     

    We don't.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post




    None of that, however, precludes the situation where the rise in atmospheric CO2 level happens first, due, for example, to industrial emissions.


     

    And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.


     

    So we are back to simple denial - there is nothing to discuss if you simply reject the observations.

     

    As for the actual subject that we were discussing - what is/is not a greenhouse gas and how does the greenhouse effect work - are you good with that now?

  • Reply 107 of 227
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    We don't.




    We do.

     

    Stallinga, Peter, De mythe van klimaatsveranderingen

     
     So we are back to simple denial - there is nothing to discuss if you simply reject the observations.

     

    The observations agree with me. That’d be why I believe what I believe. Otherwise I’d believe what you believe. Sorry! 

     
     are you good with that now?

     

    Nope, for the reasons and links I’ve already posted, as well as the general global scope of the temperature readings we’ve taken with both modern and pre-modern instruments, as well as the data we have from ice cores and the like. The opposite of what is claimed is what we see.

     

    It’s not that I don’t question the mechanics of what you’re saying, but the presumed implications thereof are obviously incorrect.

  • Reply 108 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    We don't.




    We do.

     

    Stallinga, Peter, De mythe van klimaatsveranderingen


     

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question. Are you simply asking why the temperature ever falls again if increasing CO2 increases radiative forcing? I thought that you were asking why high CO2 levels caused the temperature to fall. So - if the former - it falls again due to other factors that reduce solar insolation and outweigh the greenhouse effect - for example volcanic activity, Milankovitch cycles etc. If you look at how the past warm periods ended you can see a variety of effects. In any case, as the climate cools, the CO2 levels drop, with a lag, as the oceans re-absorb the gas into solution.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



     are you good with that now?

     

    Nope, for the reasons and links I’ve already posted, as well as the general global scope of the temperature readings we’ve taken with both modern and pre-modern instruments, as well as the data we have from ice cores and the like. The opposite of what is claimed is what we see.


     

    So you are not disagreeing now with the physics of the greenhouse effect, whether argon is a greenhouse gas, etc., just with whether that process is responsible for climate change at this time? As in "that hypothesis is obviously incorrect because the climate is not warming"?

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    It’s not that I don’t question the mechanics of what you’re saying, but the presumed implications thereof are obviously incorrect.


     

    Fair enough, but then the argument is probably moot at this point (again), since there is no point in me trying to explain the physics of radiative forcing if you don't accept that it is exists.

     

  • Reply 109 of 227
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Are you simply asking why the temperature ever falls again if increasing CO2 increases radiative forcing? So - if the former - it falls again due to other factors that reduce solar insolation and outweigh the greenhouse effect - for example volcanic activity, Milankovitch cycles etc.


     

    Slightly off the point: do you believe that CO2 can increase volcanic activity? If so, why bother worrying about an increase since the volcanoes thereafter will decrease it?

    Directly on the point: so you accept that the Milankovitch cycles can arrest the rise of CO2 but don’t accept that it can happen this time?

     

    So you are not disagreeing now with the physics of the greenhouse effect, whether argon is a greenhouse gas, etc., just with whether that process is responsible for climate change at this time? As in "that hypothesis is obviously incorrect because the climate is not warming"?


     

    I think that’s right, yes.

     

    ...since there is no point in me trying to explain the physics of radiative forcing if you don’t accept that it is exists.


     

    It’s not even a matter of whether CO2 (et. al.) can retain extra heat if we’re not seeing the warming claimed to be a result thereof!

  • Reply 110 of 227
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Are you simply asking why the temperature ever falls again if increasing CO2 increases radiative forcing? So - if the former - it falls again due to other factors that reduce solar insolation and outweigh the greenhouse effect - for example volcanic activity, Milankovitch cycles etc.


     

    Slightly off the point: do you believe that CO2 can increase volcanic activity? If so, why bother worrying about an increase since the volcanoes thereafter will decrease it?

    Directly on the point: so you accept that the Milankovitch cycles can arrest the rise of CO2 but don’t accept that it can happen this time?


     

    I cannot imagine how CO2 levels would affect volcanic activity. That is just something that has varied over the history of the planet, generally leading to planetary cooling when activity was intense. I guess that we could just wait for that to happen again to cool things down, but who knows when that would be.

     

    From a Milankovitch cycle point of view, the planet was, and should still be, in a cooling cycle - another reason why the observed current trends are disturbing to those who actually see them. For those who don't, that's not a problem of course.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post




    ...since there is no point in me trying to explain the physics of radiative forcing if you don’t accept that it is exists.


     

    It’s not even a matter of whether CO2 (et. al.) can retain extra heat if we’re not seeing the warming claimed to be a result thereof!


     

    Obviously not. If you can't see the warming trend in the data then this all moot, as I said. I will still restate my long-standing point that it seems bizarre to reject the conclusions of most of the relevant scientific community in favor of the protestations of the energy companies, their lobbyists and an assortment of laypersons trying to play scientist. It certainly requires an obscurely driven global conspiracy to justify such a point of view, but I just don't get the motivation to take such a contrived position. As a scientist (albeit from a different field) looking at this issue, the more I read and the more data that I see, the more I am driven to the assessment that the overall conclusion of AGW is probably correct. Not proven, but more likely than not to be approximately correct.

  • Reply 111 of 227
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 396member
    sennen wrote: »
    Thanks, Tim, for outing all the loony climate change denialists on AI.
    robbyx wrote: »
    And drilling into the ground, or even better, the sea floor, is oh so brilliant. And let's not forget the incredible genius that is fracking. But yes, putting up large solar installations in the desert where no one wants to live anyway is stupidity. Uh huh.

    Not everyone has empty desert real estate. I don't find the solar approach as distasteful as those hideous windmills but neither approach would seem to be very efficient. The countries that would actually benefit from an increase in temperatures typically don't have deserts. I assume you don't expect people in colder climates to freeze in the winter while waiting for the sun to come out. The notion of a carbon free energy source is of course very appealing but no one has come close to achieving it. The nuclear industry is the closest but that comes with its own problems. If the US were serious about reducing CO2 levels they would increase taxes on consumption for example on automobile fuel. Instead, you have everyone running around pointing to "renewable energy" as a lifesaver when it is unfortunately not realistic at this time. Carbon fuels will be around for a long time while work progresses on other fronts.

    I think the climate change activist rhetoric, though well meaning, is doing more harm than good.
  • Reply 112 of 227
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmcd View Post







    Not everyone has empty desert real estate. I don't find the solar approach as distasteful as those hideous windmills but neither approach would seem to be very efficient. The countries that would actually benefit from an increase in temperatures typically don't have deserts. I assume you don't expect people in colder climates to freeze in the winter while waiting for the sun to come out. The notion of a carbon free energy source is of course very appealing but no one has come close to achieving it. The nuclear industry is the closest but that comes with its own problems. If the US were serious about reducing CO2 levels they would increase taxes on consumption for example on automobile fuel. Instead, you have everyone running around pointing to "renewable energy" as a lifesaver when it is unfortunately not realistic at this time. Carbon fuels will be around for a long time while work progresses on other fronts.



    I think the climate change activist rhetoric, though well meaning, is doing more harm than good.



    I personally favor geothermal as far as "alternative" energy goes.  I can't speak to it being "carbon free", but it's incredibly simple and doesn't require large installations, rare earth minerals, etc.  It also doesn't require the wind to be blowing, the sun to be shining, or anything else.  It's just generating energy 24/7.  I agree that carbon fuels will be around for a long time and in certain applications, they are still by far the best choice.  But there's no reason that parts of the United States couldn't be powered entirely by geothermal with absolutely no carbon emitted, no solar panels, no ugly windmills, etc.  And this would be far better than burning coal.  Look at Iceland.  They produce so much geothermal energy they don't know what to do with all of it.  Japan is idiotic.  They have thousands of hot springs, yet they choose nuclear?

     

    As for solar and wind, Germany, a cold, gray country with no deserts produces a huge amount of its energy via renewables:

     

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

     

    I'd personally rather tolerate "climate activist rhetoric" than live on a planet that resembles an "immense pile of filth" as the Pope recently said of the Earth.  Carbon fuels are old, dirty technology.  Renewables are the future.  It's ironic how many people on here are so enamored with every new tech gadget yet complete luddites in their thinking when it comes to energy production.  And not just energy production, but the very real environmental consequences of carbon fuels.  Even if humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change, these fuels are still toxic and filthy and produce toxic byproducts.

     

    I don't care about renewables because of climate change.  I care about them because they are better, because they are new tech, better tech, because they don't pollute all day every day.  They aren't perfect.  But they are a step in the right direction, so I support more of them and I support any company or government initiative to use more of them.

  • Reply 113 of 227
    Originally Posted by robbyx View Post

    I personally favor geothermal as far as "alternative" energy goes.

     

    I thought that prohibitive costs and fickle, location-based requirements were keeping it from expanding.

     

    I’ve always loved the idea, but if it can only work in certain locations (like solar), that keeps it from being the end-all, be-all you suggest.

  • Reply 114 of 227
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    I thought that prohibitive costs and fickle, location-based requirements were keeping it from expanding.

     

    I’ve always loved the idea, but if it can only work in certain locations (like solar), that keeps it from being the end-all, be-all you suggest.




    I never said it was an end-all be all.  But, by all means, if it can't be used EVERYWHERE, we shouldn't use it ANYWHERE.  Yes, it is location dependent.  A lot of the energy where I live is generated via geothermal.  Apple has a data center here that uses geothermal energy.  A lot of the west coast could be geothermal powered.  It isn't about finding some magic source of energy that can be used in every application.  It's about using better sources of energy when possible.  Most cars, and certainly all heavy machinery, will run on carbon fuels for many years to come.  But we have plenty of good renewable energy technologies that can power our cities without polluting the air, without stripping the earth bare, without producing toxic byproducts.  We should embrace all of them and use whichever ones are appropriate for the given location.  As for solar, Germany proves that even a country that gets relatively little sun can still generate a lot of solar energy.

  • Reply 115 of 227
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 396member
    @robbyx

    I agree with much of what you said. The German example is very interesting though I don't much care for the windmills! They have had to increase the use of coal and electrical prices did apparently go up.

    Geothermal, ocean tides, etc ... are all things that are really appealing. I certainly agree that we should strive to generate energy in the cleanest way possible. So really the sky is the limit and there are many research problems to tackle. Unfortunately, even the lowly battery has not changed a whole lot in a hundred years so unless you have a way of powering cars in a cleaner way a main source of pollution remains. If the US were serious about CO2 levels then why hasn't gas been taxed at a more reasonable level? Until I see something like that I find it a bit difficult to take seriously any of the current government positions on the topic. The car is, unfortunately, a problem and no amount of eco talking is going to change that.
  • Reply 116 of 227
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmcd View Post



    Not everyone has empty desert real estate. I don't find the solar approach as distasteful as those hideous windmills but neither approach would seem to be very efficient. The countries that would actually benefit from an increase in temperatures typically don't have deserts. I assume you don't expect people in colder climates to freeze in the winter while waiting for the sun to come out.

     

    Germany (cold, fairly densely populated) has plenty of solar power farms and does very well out of them. They're already as cheap as fossil fuel burning plants on a MW/$ basis. They're not a complete solution in winter for countries further away from the equator but their efficiency is improving at a significant rate.

  • Reply 117 of 227
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
     
    We don't want to debate it...because we'd lose and we know it.

    The world has much greater problems to face than Al Gore's latest money making scheme.
    Heh heh. You (and the four people who added to your reputation in relation to this post) are just going to have to suck it up, I guess.

    Cognitive dissonance can be such a b****.

    Funny....not really.
    Oh the irony. The oft quoted meme that Apple users are more educated, intelligent etc than the rest of the world, just nose dived into irrelevancy. The cesspit of global temperature change denial crosses all social groups it seems.
    How stupid of me to think a phd(high temperature extremophiles) would gain me an upper hand in understanding how the world works and man's influence thereon. Though come to think of it, my subject matter aptly describes the abject state of the debate here.
    Sad to think that the arguments that were being voiced forty years ago ré the causes of global temperature change have made so little impact on the average American punter. Part of my studies were in the US at Yellowstone, the consensus even then was convincingly persuasive, the rhetoric was measured and intelligently enquiring. Those things haven't changed in the scientific community but now it's enforced by years of political inaction and flagrant dissembling by the self interested "I'm alright Jack FU" brigade" masquerading as the truth.
    "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
  • Reply 118 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    So you have no argument whatsoever, then.

     

     

    So why do we historically see the temperature fall off DURING the peak of CO2 if said feedback loop exists?

     

    And yet there’s no warming due to that CO2, so the premise is faulty.




    See, this is just the dumbest debate. You are looking at the general temperature on a given day and sounding a lot like Mitch McConnell. I could easily reference that all winter in Los Angeles the temperatures were in the 80's most of the time, which is technically higher, but that in and of itself is not the key indicator for climate change. Annual average temperatures are on the rise buddy. Keep on coming at me with the Ted Cruz arguments and see how fast you are devolving any credible debate. 

  • Reply 119 of 227
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    You're jumping to conclusions. I favor lower emissions and pollutants. They're a health risk that can be mitigated at the state level in the US. The very large scale polluters are in China and India. Talk to them.



    These are conclusions drawn from at least the 1980's. Climate change aside, if we all agree that pollutants are a bad thing, why not address them whether the goal is to stop climate change or not stop climate change? It makes the counter argument to climate change moot. And yes, China and India are big perps, but that is why Tim Cook is taking action and leveraging Apple's power in China to actually do something over there, because it's not like they are going to listen to our politicians who have all made a mockery of our whole system of government.

  • Reply 120 of 227
    latifbp wrote: »

    These are conclusions drawn from at least the 1980's. Climate change aside, if we all agree that pollutants are a bad thing, why not address them whether the goal is to stop climate change or not stop climate change? It makes the counter argument to climate change moot. And yes, China and India are big perps, but that is why Tim Cook is taking action and leveraging Apple's power in China to actually do something over there, because it's not like they are going to listen to our politicians who have all made a mockery of our whole system of government.

    If you've never been to China, I'm afraid you simply cannot appreciate how poisoned their environment is over there.
Sign In or Register to comment.