Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Earth Apple

Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting 572

Posted by kdawson
from the inconvenient-shareholders dept.
theodp writes "Apple's shareholder meeting this week took on a Jerry Springer vibe, with harsh comments about Al Gore, former VP and Apple board member, setting the tone. Several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising Gore's high-profile views on climate change. Apple shareholder Shelton Ehrlich urged against Gore's re-election to the board, claiming that Gore 'has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted. If [the] advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.' Hey, at least he moved a few copies of Keynote, Shelton. Shareholders introduced proposals regarding Apple's environmental impact — one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee. These proposals were rejected by shareholders. However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting

Comments Filter:
  • by cuncator (906265) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @01:01AM (#31302794)
    Wow, and I thought that horse was dead, beaten, cremated and recycled into cinder blocks already. Hell, even Newt Gingrich admitted Gore's role in advancing the technology: http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230008 [mediamatters.org]
  • Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @01:35AM (#31303034)

    And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left.

    Actually, the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc. Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis, much as they did with the Tea Party groups (claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore don't need to be listened to), and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.

    Conservatives are no better, throwing around scare jargon like "socialism" instead of focusing on the actual issues. The important thing to realize is that there's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people.

  • by uncqual (836337) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @01:55AM (#31303156)
    Science also didn't care if preservatives in vaccines led to autism. The media cared a lot. Articles in peer reviewed journals thought it did (until they were retracted [washingtontimes.com] in embarrassment).

    Those who denied that a bacteria (imagine that) was responsible for most stomach ulcers were ridiculed by the established medical community (until they were proven wrong).

    And, both of these were FAR less complex systems than the Earth's climate and far easier to test theories on.

    Be very careful of claims of "settled science". AGW may be real (I think it is almost certainly real) - but the magnitude of its is much more uncertain (and, if it's actually a good or bad thing for human survival is unknown -- if we are heading for another mini ice age, we might be happy that a few hundred years of AGW had increased global temps by a degree or two).

    Rule of thumb... "Settled Science" should only be applied to PROVABLE premises, else a better term is "hypothesis".
  • Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rei (128717) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @01:58AM (#31303174) Homepage

    If you want to get along with people better, next time, try being correct [sciencedaily.com].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @02:22AM (#31303278)
    H.O.A's are but whiney bunches of nazi rubes and yuppies who stick their head up everybody else's ass. Food for thought:

    the whole HOA is a sucker's game set up by a collusion of developers and local governments. Unpaid HOA boards use HOA assessment fees to pay for what should be the municipality's responsibility, such basics as roads, electricity, sewage, and water. Developers create high-profit, high-density housing and then hand it over, lock, stock, and all financial and legal responsibilities to these amateur boards not only to run what often amount to million-dollar businesses, but also to keep on paying property taxes to local government for the infrastructure services those authorities didn't actually have to provide or keep up. No wonder cities love them just as much as developers. No wonder HOA-run condo complexes have mushroomed sixfold, from 7000 in California 20 years ago to about 43,000 today, housing around 10 million, maybe a quarter of the state's entire population.

  • Re:Fools. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by johncadengo (940343) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @02:55AM (#31303472) Homepage

    I am Chritian and do not care one way or the other but do try to do my best to mininze how much I polute the world.

    Also, God should be capitalized since it is a proper noun. In fact, in your context, you used it as a name/title. If you were speaking of Obama by title, you would write "The American President would..." not "The American president would..."

    I don't know why this matters to you. Is this some feeble attempt to restore the dignity of the name of God, and of all places, on the internet?

    From the Life of Pi [wikipedia.org]:

    There are always those who take it upon themselves to defend God, as if the Ultimate Reality, as if the sustaining frame of existence, were something weak and helpless. These people walk by a widow deformed by leprosy begging for a few paise, walk by children dressed in rags living in the street, and they think, "Business as usual." But if they perceive a slight against God, it is a different story. Their faces go red, their chests heave mightily, they sputter angry words. The degree of their indignation is astonishing. Their resolve is frightening.

    These people fail to realize that it is on the inside that God must be defended, not on the outside. They should direct their anger at themselves. For evil in the open is but evil from within that has been let out. The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart. Meanwhile, the lot of widows and homeless children is very hard, and it is to their defence, not God's, that the self-righteous should rush.

    And my personal thoughts on the subject: You think you can defend the name of God? You do more to blasphemy it with your hypocrisy than they do with their unbelief.

  • by kanweg (771128) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:05AM (#31303520)

    In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far. In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why). If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues? People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite. This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others. We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too. We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.

    After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist). Uh, gulp. In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down. You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource. Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot). There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.

    Saving energy can be so easy. For some homes: Take taking a shower. The water that drains is still warm. You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy. The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower). The unborn can't bid with you for that energy. Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.

    Bert

  • Re:Fools. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by johncadengo (940343) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:07AM (#31303538) Homepage

    I've heard another "Christian" say global warming is a good thing if it's part of the rapture (that 19th century weirdness from cutting and pasting bits of the Bible until it says what you want). I've put their self description in quotes because it was one of those groups that think the poor and the sick are being punished by God so should never be helped but merchants in the temple are fine.

    Many Christians believe in a Millennial Kingdom [gotquestions.org] which will be reestablished here on earth. If this particular person believed so, then he would not believe global warming is a good thing. Not that God wouldn't allow it to happen, but that God would punish those who try to prevent the kingdom from coming. This means that if global warming has its way and the earth is no longer habitable, I'm pretty sure God would do something about it, including but not limited to restoring it to Eden-esque perfection, and punishing those responsible for Earth's demise.

    I count global warming as something both preventable and possible, and therefore punishable.

  • Re:Flamewar imminent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by johncadengo (940343) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:09AM (#31303546) Homepage

    It's interesting how those who deny man's impact on global warming, or global warming itself, can claim victory if people like Gore and others succeed in preventing it. They'll sit back and say, "Told you so. The earth's still here, isn't it? We're still living, aren't we? No matter what we did, it would've happened like this anyhow."

  • Agree w/ parent... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jadin (65295) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:14AM (#31303570) Homepage

    Revelations 11:18 (KJV) - And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

  • by Angst Badger (8636) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:29AM (#31303644)

    This got +5 Insightful?

    And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.

    There wasn't any demonization in the original post. There's a difference between dismissal and demonization.

    On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.

    ...but that, on the other hand, comes close, in addition to being laughably irrational. People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow. And once ensconced in climatology, there's no particular financial incentive to espouse any particular theory. "Hey, I really made a bundle off of my latest paper on upper-atmosphere particulates in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes." Riiiiiiight.

    As with religious fundamentalists who like to argue that science is a religion, absurd accusations of this sort usually say a great deal more about the accuser than the accused.

  • Use Less is Useless (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:42AM (#31303702)
    The reason it is BS is because more gasoline has been used to produce the food we ate to power our hands and brains will typing this post (gasoline is consumed to produce food). Sure, some conservation is smart - higher value insulation, draft guards, etc. This will reduce the price of energy use. However, conservation cannot reduce the amount of energy used. IT CANNOT. Here's why it cannot: Jevon's paradox [wikipedia.org]. I am a proud American, but I am not fascinated by one thing. I am only interested in efforts that actually produce results.
  • Re:Thunk dumb. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hellsbells (231588) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:53AM (#31303752)

    >> You do realize, they've been in decline for about the last 18k years, right? Since the last glacial period.

    Quite the pedant. The GP poster wasn't talking about a very tiny decline.
    No-one is trying to claim that the climate doesn't change. The problem is how quickly it is currently changing.

    If the temperature had been increasing for the last 18k years as fast as it has risen for the last few decades, we'd currently be experiencing temperatures nearing the 300 degrees Celcius mark, and the glaciers would have long since melted.

  • Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FatSean (18753) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @03:57AM (#31303768) Homepage Journal

    I understand that the energy interests are buying scientists who deny that human activity is causing climate change. Changing technology would hurt or destroy their profit centers.

    But what is the government's incentive again?

  • Re:wind (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Your.Master (1088569) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @04:01AM (#31303786)

    Nuclear was made safe and there were many nuclear powered nations developing their own reactor designs that have never made a single nuclear weapon.

  • by wall0159 (881759) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @04:27AM (#31303904)

    "Just like the sun around the earth, right?"

    Are you implying that the geocentric theory of the universe was a scientific theory? It was Galileo who was one of the early proponents of the heliocentric theory. Heliocentrism was first proposed by Copernicus. Both these men are today regarded as early scientists.

    So, despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, yes: there are a lot of parallels between GW and geocentric theories. In both cases there was/is an entrenched and powerful body defending a claim that was/is not supported by science (in the 16th century the church was defending geocentrism. Today energy companies are telling us that GW is bogus) and scientists are being vilified for disagreeing (in the 16th C, Galileo was threatened with execution and placed under house arrest. Today we have propaganda, discreditation and misinformation campaigns, etc).

  • by Peter Nikolic (1093513) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @04:44AM (#31303980) Journal

    Well what does NOT surprise me we got farcical apple so called computing devices and pox infested imitation phones scab laden MP3 (more pox 3) players and we got that fat bastard Al Gore in there as well i always knew it was a tosspot company now i know for sure.

     

  • by MadUndergrad (950779) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @04:46AM (#31303988)

    Anecdote is not the singular of data, etc etc.

    That said, my dad suffered from stomach ulcers for 20 years or more. He'd go through two bottles of Mylanta a week. Once this bacterial theory proved fruitful, a simple course of tailored antibiotics cured his stomach within several weeks. Not an ulcer since.

  • by wall0159 (881759) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @05:03AM (#31304054)

    Interesting link. So, if 1/7 scientists "cheat" in their results, then 6/7 presumably don't?

    Also, a quote from your article:
    "And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in "questionable practices", such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."

    I have read that it is quite common for pharmaceutical companies to fund research and only allow the scientists to publish if the results suit them. I'm sure these are the sort of funding sources that pressure scientists to alter results - and I suspect that Big Oil engages in similar practices also. Compare this to most of the pro_GW scientists who are in general government-funded.

    My suspicion (for which I lack evidence), is that it is the 1/7 corrupt scientists who are the GW-denialists, and are funded by energy companies!

    ps. I thought about removing #2, because I didn't think it added much to my argument.

  • Re:Thunk dumb. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @05:06AM (#31304058) Journal

    A good example of something that's been misused by *Gore*, to be even-handed here, is Kilimanjaro. Gore cited it as an example of climate change. It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked. The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing. The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation. Most (although not all) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region, not warming.

    Don't be so sure.

    The observed surface lowering is now partially the result of surface melting, a recent phenomenon as confirmed by obser- vations of the ice cores drilled to bedrock in 2000. The upper 65 cm of the 49-m NIF core 3 is the only portion containing elongated bubbles, channels, and open voids characteristic of extensive melting (Fig. 3A) and refreezing; these features are not observed in the lower sections of any cores (Fig. 3B). This finding is significant, because it confirms the absence of surface melting for the prior 11 millennia.

    LG Thompson (2009) [pnas.org]

    In addition, the current drought is not unprecedented. But the assignation of blame, so to speak, is complicated by the relatively poor instrumental record in the region.

  • by kanweg (771128) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @05:52AM (#31304224)

    Yes, you need to invest energy into extract copper from ore etc. to create such a device. But, if the device is discarded after a couple of decennia, you've high grade copper that can be recycled with very little energy.

    Again, I think this post supports my statements.

    - Why is the yardstick of having to create a device used for this device to discard it as a valid proposal, where your argument goes for any device for generating (or saving) energy? What is so special about the device that makes it more important to apply that yardstick? The device involves nothing more than a copper tube (which is probably used to drain the waste water anyway), surrounded by a plastic tube for supplying the cold water (which had to be supplied via a tube anyway). Yes, there is some additional material used there, but not dramatically much more. There is nothing that can break. The maintenance is pulling a rag through it every year.

    - Why are you talking about taking shorter showers? Heat recuperation with this device doesn't require that, I didn't mention it, so why do you bring it up?

    - Why do you think providing an example as I did is a slam of other paths to try to reduce energy use? It was merely an example showing that you can save a substantial amount of energy without giving up any comfort. The only hard part is: Thinking ahead when building/renovating a home.

    Bert

  • Re:Fools. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by boristhespider (1678416) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @06:31AM (#31304322)

    The mind absolutely boggles.

    You're trying to compare a scientist working on a long-standing problem in theoretical physics (to whit: given that the Maxwell equations predict a velocity of light and don't specify a frame for this to be measured with respect to, and given Galilean relativity which relates the velocity of objects measured from frames moving with respect to one-another, why do we not observe a change in the speed of light from the sun as measured in December and in June?), to which a *mathematical* solution was known, the Lorentz transformations, but to which a physical understanding hadn't been addressed, with the murky and highly politicised world of climate research, one of the messiest and error-prone fields of study one can work on? Climate science is a horribly complicated, alarmingly nonlinear, alarmingly chaotic (in a mathematical sense) area of study, and one which is polluted by vested interests on both sides. You're not even beginning to compare like for like.

  • by PiSkyHi (1049584) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @06:36AM (#31304338)

    Sounds wrong to me. I recall that the researcher took the bacteria to prove he could recover using a course of anti-biotics and proton pump inhibitors (stomach acid blockers).

    So I found this:

    http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/ [nih.gov]

    Two-week triple therapy reduces ulcer symptoms, kills the bacteria, and prevents ulcer recurrence in more than 90 percent of patients.

    Did they just get lucky ? or maybe their science is worth their Nobel Prize.

  • by azaris (699901) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:25AM (#31304470) Journal

    Listen, you can either drop everything and study your ass off for the better part of a decade to get a PhD in atmospheric science, or listen to the people who have them.

    Indeed you should [drroyspencer.com].

  • by jwhitener (198343) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @06:22PM (#31309374)

    I've brought this up a few times on various boards. What happened during the tobacco 'debates' is exactly what is happening in the AGW 'debates' now.

    Same funding model. Wealthy individuals/companies fund 'think tanks' for the purpose of spreading misinformation. Those think tank 'experts' get air time on TV and radio because a heated debate is more entertaining than a report about a consensus. And there is also great pressure to be 'fair and balanced' to corporations who are your major source of advertising income.

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...