At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers • Hacker News Board

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#61

Post by Retric » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:10 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #15

downandout wrote: post #8

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was cor…

Including the founder of Greenpeace http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gree...

You find crazy on both sides of any major issue. NCPPR and Greenpeace are both nut-job organisations which are best ignored. Not because nothing they say is true, but rather the fact they said something has little to do with how true it is.

Think of it like a horoscope sound and bluster, signifying nothing.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#62

Post by ghouse » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:14 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #58

nailer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including the founder of Greenpeace http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gree...

Interesting..."There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," he told a US Senate Committee "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

Science is a process. Proofs exist in math.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#63

Post by salgernon » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:16 AM UTC

It seems to me that these folks are using the shareholder meeting - and Tim cooks response - as theatre to get in the public eye. I'd never heard of them before (and now I know to avoid them) and they've succeeded in getting their message in front of many more people.

This is the reason greenpeace and similar target apple publicly, even though apple was already doing much of what they were asking for.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#64

Post by lukifer » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:18 AM UTC

singingfish wrote: post #51

downandout wrote: post #8

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was cor…

Sorry, climate change deniers are stupid and crazy and/or evil. I prefer to call them climate delusionals. Right now we have a choice to either try to ameliorate climate change, or ignore it and watch civilisation collapse over the next century or so. It's a hard problem scientifically and politically, and the delusionals and their loby groups should receive nothing but contempt and derision.

I recently ran into a NOAA [1] scientist and talked to him briefly on the subject. He claimed that was there was effectively no one in the field that had any doubt about anthropogenic climate change, although there were many disputes about details. The few who do argue against it (he knew them by name) are very respected and intelligent, but have contrarian personalities, and tend to dispute specific models and argue in favor of uncertainty, rather than arguing that human behavior is definitively unrelated.

Scientific communities are far from immune to taboos and group-think, and I think every idea deserves scrutiny and (true) skepticism, no matter how "settled". But while the science continues to iterate and refine, policy decisions should be based on weight of evidence, which is vastly in favor of human-caused climate change.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheri...

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#65

Post by singingfish » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #64

singingfish wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, climate change deniers are stupid and crazy and/or evil. I prefer to call them climate delusionals. Right now we have a choice to either try to ameliorate climate change, or ignore it and watch civilisation collapse over the next century or so. It's a hard problem scientifically and politically, and the delusionals and their loby groups should receive nothing but contempt and derision.

I recently ran into a NOAA [1] scientist and talked to him briefly on the subject. He claimed that was there was effectively no one in the field that had any doubt about anthropogenic climate change, although there were many disputes about details. The few who do argue against it (he knew them by name) are very respected and intelligent, but have contrarian personalities, and tend to dispute specific models and argue…

The simple fact of the matter is that something would have to be badly wrong with the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds in order for our understanding of human climate change to be sufficiently defective that the delusionals point of view was somehow more correct than the consensus view.

Our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of chemical bonds are basically what enable civilisation as we know it.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#66

Post by wpietri » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:23 AM UTC

ry0ohki wrote: post #18

jpgvm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any scientist worth the oxygen they breathe all seem to be in agreement of 3 things. a) Climate change is real and happening. b) It's most definitely the impact of our utilisation of natural resources. c) That we can take measures to minimise it's effects.

All true, but I think there is a misconception that if we all just recycle more and drive hybrids that climate change will stop. We are accelerating climate change, but even if we stopped all carbon now Bangladesh will still be under water in 150 years or less.

No serious environmentalist I've read believes that misconception. In my view, that's another form of denial. Not the organized PR-flack fraud in the style originated by the tobacco industry, but just the normal human kind of wanting to ignore anything personally inconvenient.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#67

Post by wpietri » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:28 AM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #34

I'm really sceptical and suspicious to the type of environmental policies that Apple and other companies do. The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it. I really don't like how unsystematic and non-transparent this approach is. A clean solution would be a tax on non-green energy. It…

> The effect on global warming is near zero, possibly even negative. The decision to use green energy decreases the price of non-green energy, so other companies will buy more of it.

That's a first-order effect. But second-order effects of the price changes include encouraging investment in green energy and discouraging investment in non-green energy. That will shift the long-term incentives for all market participants.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#68

Post by rwallace » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:36 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #8

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was cor…

You're getting a lot of disagreement with parts of your first paragraph, but I think it's worth dwelling for a moment on the good point you make your second paragraph. There are two claims the NCPPR are disputing:

1. Climate change is a big problem, if not for the present then at least for the near future, unless we do something about it.

2. Given that, we should all make an effort to do what we reasonably can about it, instead of caring about nothing whatsoever except money.

If the NCPPR disagree with the first claim, then they should present their best case for that disagreement. I think they're mistaken, but if they have evidence for their position, then let's hear it.

But instead of making that case, they mixed it in with disagreement with the second claim, which is a bad way to argue (mixing empirical questions and value judgments) and makes them come across like sociopaths to boot.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#69

Post by brc » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:38 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #57

downandout wrote: post #8

"Climate Change Denier" is a term coined by radical environmentalists in an attempt to paint their opponents as crazy and stupid. Most rational people don't deny that climate change is occurring. Many people simply side with scientists that have examined the facts and determined that human attempts at trying to control climate change are about as effective as Indian rain dances. That said, Tim Cook's response was cor…

It has always struck me as rather ridiculous to make a big deal about the distinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic climate change. Whether or not climate change is anthropogenic, it is going to require a response. The argument might be that efforts should be directed at mitigating the negative effects of climate change, because it is futile to try and avert it, but climate change deniers aren't making…

But the cause is important, because that dictates the response. If people continue to think that failed policy ideas like the Kyoto protocol are the effective response, then all we are doing is wasting resources and doing untold damage for no reason. Kyoto and its ilk are the equivalent of throwing virgins at volcanoes.

Adaptation should be about increasing water storage, storm defense and concentrating on uninterrupted energy supply. Research money should be spent on new energy technology and better climate forecasting.

Right now we have billions being spent on innefectual or worse solutions, because the responses are based on 20 year-old understanding of climate sensitivity, which has proven to be incorrect by several orders of magnitude.

If Illinois does turn into Texas, what you absolutely dont want is having sent the previous fifty years wasting your productive capacity on worthless solutions.

Re: At Apple shareholder’s meeting, Tim Cook tells off climate change deniers

#70

Post by brc » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 1:45 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #29

jjoonathan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this group [does not deny] that climate change is occurring But their press release says > Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. which sounds like denial to me. Would you prefer to call them "Climate Change Skeptics," the term coined by radical conservatives to attempt to paint themselves as not crazy and anti-scientific? Everyone plays the "name yourself according…

"Climate change" used to be "global warming" until that term became so strongly associated with extremists that it instantly damaged the credibility of anyone that used it. "Climate Change Skeptics" communicates the same thing as "deniers". You are missing the point. Most people agree that climate change (aka global warming) is occurring. The argument is over whether we can cause it or stop it.

I would guess that they are saying so called because most people who say 'climate change' assume that human-created c02 is the major driver of climate, when all of the detailed measurements taken since the forming of the IPCC have shown that the sensitivity is far lower.

Each IPCC report has increased the confidence of the impact of human emissions, but lowered the effect. So the science says that we are more certain now than before, but that the sensitivity is much lower than understood before. This is great news but most people haven't realized that the scare stories of 10-15 years ago no longer apply. The term 'climate change' is pretty debased though, because it can mean anything from 'natural climate change' to 'Himalayan glaciers are going to melt in 20 years'.

But the wording from this group is silly, there is no doubt.