5 ms·

Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important: > In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being

by apo 7y ago

Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important: > In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found desperate shelter from a 100-year disaster, the kind that seem to be happening more and more frequently, I don't think we can talk about who we are as people and what we owe to one another without talking about climate change. https://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2019/05/transcript-tim-cook-tulane.html https://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2019/05/transcript-tim-co... I get the feeling that Cook, like so many other public figures who bring up climate change post-2016, is really talking about removing the president from office. Consider the last sentence here: > When we talk about climate change or any issue with human costs, and there are many, I challenge you to look for those who have the most to lose and find the real, true empathy that comes from something shared. That is really what we owe one another. When you do that, the political noise dies down, and you can feel your feet firmly planted on solid ground. After all, we don't build monuments to trolls, and we're not going to start now. Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match.

sidlls 7y ago
On the other hand an entire class of political participants refuses to acknowledge the science. It's a bit hard to have a discussion with them when they deny there's anything to discuss.
perfunctory 7y ago
> is really talking about removing the president from office. Maybe I am not sophisticated enough but I have a feeling that he is really talking about climate change.
briandear 7y ago
> Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match. The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-climate-policies-are-about-wealth-redistribution https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c... For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels. What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets. To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals. Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege. To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production. Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized. We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong. I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic. Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.
50656E6973 7y ago
Ironic, seeing as how Google is one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world, using their state of the art AI/ML algorithms to manipulate the minds of the masses into endless conspicuous consumption --which is one of the biggest drivers of ecological self destruction.
ChristianGeek 7y ago
Tim Cook’s Apple has definitely failed me.

by apo 7y ago

sidlls 7y ago

On the other hand an entire class of political participants refuses to acknowledge the science. It's a bit hard to have a discussion with them when they deny there's anything to discuss.

perfunctory 7y ago

> is really talking about removing the president from office. Maybe I am not sophisticated enough but I have a feeling that he is really talking about climate change.

briandear 7y ago

> Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match. The problem isn’t the science as much as the proposed solutions. The more extreme solutions are more about income redistribution rather than actual science. Whether or not climate change is unequivocally human caused, there are those that would use “climate” as a means to enact economic proposals they favor regardless of the climate impact. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-climate-policies-are-about-wealth-redistribution https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-failed-c... For example, what about nuclear? If we are “serious” about climate change, nuclear is the best choice for large scale electrical production, but nuclear faces opposition from those that scream loudest about the danger of fossil fuels. What about the Paris climate meeting? The local airport was filled to the brim with private jets. To normal people like me, why should I set my thermostat to a higher temperature in summer when my energy use is just a blip compared to some “Climate official’s” own carbon footprint. Why should poor people have to pay a higher percentage of their income for energy taxes while the limousine liberals keendoing their thing? They aren’t personally consuming less or suffering the impact of their proposals. Buying “carbon credits” is a cop out — unless they are actually reducing their own energy consumption, they are still spitting CO2 into the air, no matter how much they pay for the privilege. To me, if the situation were so dire, there’d be a lot less hypocrisy. If the “experts” aren’t flying commercial or video conferencing, then clearly the problem isn’t a grave as they suggest. There is absolutely no rationale for climate officials taking a Gulfstream to a climate conference. The concern over the climate rings hollow compared to the bigger goals of redistributing the means of production. Al Gore becoming a billionaire because of the climate industry also creates some skepticism since he and other like him have a vested financial interest in propagating his opinions. His Inconvinient Truth movie was full of blatant inaccuracies and the forecast FUD never materialized. We constantly hear things like “in 12 years the world will end” yet, here we are, not too much different than we were in 2000. In fact, it might be argued that the climate changes with or without human intervention. The “settled” science isn’t very settled to me, otherwise the predictions wouldn’t be so consistently wrong. I am loathe to support the attempted destruction of capitalism based on unreliable computer models. Those of us skeptical of climate politics — we live here too. It isn’t like we are genuinely interested in destroying the planet; but some of us don’t have a lot of trust in power that they are actually altruistic. Remember, Eugenics was “settled science” too and we saw how horribly that turned out.

50656E6973 7y ago

Ironic, seeing as how Google is one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world, using their state of the art AI/ML algorithms to manipulate the minds of the masses into endless conspicuous consumption --which is one of the biggest drivers of ecological self destruction.

ChristianGeek 7y ago

Tim Cook’s Apple has definitely failed me.