Tim Cook introduces Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ movie to Silicon Valley

“Apple CEO Tim Cook made a special appearance during one of the first screenings of former vice president Al Gore’s new movie this week,” Buster Hein reports for Cult of Mac.

“To kick off the Silicon Valley screening of Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,’ Cook gave a short speech before the silver screen lit up,” Hein reports. “’10 years later, there’s still signs all around us of the climate crisis but there’s also great reasons for optimism,’ said Cook. ‘Markets are rewarding renewable energy everywhere, but of course the clock still runs, and the urgency has never been greater, and so I think there has never been a better time for this film.'”

Hein reports, “The movie follows Al Gore as he goes around educating people on the dangers of global warming and climate change. Gore even talks to Donald Trump in the film after he won the presidential election.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The movie debuts on July 28th. Hopefully, over the next months, the film promotion won’t take away from the important work Gore does as a longtime member of Apple Inc.’s Board of Directors.

President-elect Trump meets with Apple board member Al Gore at Trump Tower in Manhattan – December 5, 2016
Apple BoD member Al Gore to campaign for Hillary Clinton, hoping to mobilize young voters who think climate change is key issue – October 5, 2016
Apple, Current TV paydays help Al Gore get ‘Romney-Rich’ with $200 million after Bush defeat – May 6, 2013
Apple board member Al Gore sells Current TV to Al Jazeera – January 3, 2013
Al Gore accused of abusing his Apple Board of Directors position for personal gain (with video) – February 22, 2012


    1. We await your list of “lies” and “false data”. As usual, the critic of scientific reporting here offers nothing to disprove the published science.

      It wasn’t that long ago that people like you insisted the world is flat. It took hundreds of years before the science deniers were finally put in their proper place. If there was justice in the world, deniers would also be forced to put up or shut up too.

      1. In the 2006 movie, Gore claimed Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa’s tallest peak, would be snow-free “within the decade.”

        Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round.

        I have many, many more examples of Gore’s false assertions where that came from.

          1. I see the Conservatards are out in force. Let us be clear.

            What Mr Gore said was “at current rates” regarding Kilimanjaro- not that it would be a fait accompli . As usual, half truths wrapped in Right Wing disinformation.

            As regards New York City and the temperature on any given day. The warmer atmosphere now carries more water which changes the dynamic forces that interact to produce local weather and local seasonal climate variability. That manifests itself in more unseasonal weather events, so places like Houston get their 5th 100 year flood in a handful of years or the fact Chicago went through a ridiculously long period this winter with no snow accumulation. Global Warming does not mean every day at every place on the globe will be warmer than baseline. As with the mischaracterization regarding Kilimanjaro, half truths wrapped in disinformation.

            Climate Change in real, it was not a conspiracy hatched by nefarious forces and has been subject to the biggest coordinated disinformation campaign by professional PR since the Tobacco Industry fought smoking restrictions. The fossil fuel companies knew of this problem decades ago and decided to smother it so as not to hurt sales and profits.

            And finally, since we are talking about Al Gore, who whom the popular vote in 2000, he did have a lot to do with the transformation of DARPANET into the Internet as we know it. Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf both have said as much. Please forward this to Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of the liars for profit.

            Creator of the internet shits on guy who makes fun of Al Gore for "inventing the internet" (4:35) from videos

            1. The Climate Change Hoax has two purposes:
              • Coerce, without representation, a “carbon” tax to finance the “feudalism nouveau” aka globalist government.
              • Further undermine the industrial might of the West, especially the United States.

            2. I am no fan of globalism or the surrender of national sovereignty by our Government to any international organization. However, the impact of carbon fuels is a global one and cannot be addressed well on an ad hoc basis

            3. DavG, like many posters believing in the AGW position, you truncate the issue. “the impact of carbon fuels is a global one” is a bit meek in light of how the issue is presented by the likes of Al Gore and others. We are talking about a world-wide cultural, political and financial mandate for change b/c humans are now controlling climate via our disregard for the planet. What this means is, our actions have finally superseded the Sun/Moon’s historical input. Besides having to pinch myself to believe that some people really think we’ve superseded the Sun’s power in this realm, the AGW data, actions of scientists/researchers, and their advocated solutions to remedy our dire straits, is comical in some cases, as well as contradictory and corrupted. I have a hard time forgetting Al Gore starting the light-bulb-change fervor, while he was living in a house that was an astounding contradiction to his gospel, all the while flying around and telling his story in a beast of a machine spewing loads of CO that was “justified” w/ carbon credits…which are just like the non-sensical indulgences the Church required of sinners to clear their slate. Though different, but related is “cap and trade”. If one doesn’t see this is a system of mumbo-jumbo, mandated at the highest levels (UN treaties), as a solution to the problem, logic has left the bldg. Speaking of the UN, last year a high ranking UN official made some statements that lifted the veil on what “they” think is the real function of the AGW paradigm…in short, to destroy capitalism. I’m not sure if I’d position it in the same way, but I have no issue saying it’s about making all economies equal and equitable. If true, capitalism would be supplanted by a world-wide central govt. where wealth/resources would be distributed.

              Btw, I care about the planet and I’m a bit of a nut when it comes to recycling, organics, anti-GMO, efficient cars, alternative fuels (when sensical and not propped up by govt charity). I’m also all for science, which is one of the reasons I don’t think we’ve taken over for the Sun in the GW category.

            4. Trump has “only” made a deal with Putin to share the world. They don’t give a damn of what will result. Both are paranoid and megalomanic beasts.

            5. John, I believe you are the one confused. As I stated, it was a high ranking UN official who stated their aim was destroying capitalism via AGW. It appears that’s not of any value to you…shock or otherwise. I guess in your knee-jerk automaton mode, it’s hard to blurt anything but the familiar and comforting. Maybe I’m strange, but the fraud chills me to the bone.


            6. I have no intention of apologizing for the actions of others, but the science speaks for itself. One should note the Trump Administration is cutting off the NASA program that has been a treasure trove of worldwide global weather and climate data because it does not give them the numbers it wants.
              The Conservative Government in Canada under Harper threw out over 100 years worth of scientific observations and data collected at public expense over Conservative and Liberal Governments. They did not gift it to a University or foundation- they threw them out in the trash. We can only hope something similar does not happen under the current gang in Washington.

            7. DavGreg: AlGore, I get, but no need to apologize/excuse/be puzzled by the statement from the UN official? I wonder what gives the supporters of AGW, the ability to hear/read such statements and not be somewhat deterred? Is your “proven science” for AWG specifically–not the climate is changing as per ions–via models? The models of which, including those linked to the (your) vaulted NASA, have shown omissions and intentional errors and then used as the “approaching the cliff” clarion call from authorities (US/UN and others)? Those same authorities deem $$ required/received as both prevention/solution to the problem? Climate does change, and I see it as worthwhile to keep eyes on the matter to truly understand human’s influence on the planet…that would only be wise, but to base a world-wide change on models, informed by curious & oft corrupted science? Btw, did you read about what they found in Siberia recently in the sink hole revealed from melting perma-frost? In short, 10k yrs ago, it was apparently green/lush (warm) in what’s now barren/unforgiving Siberia (cold). Hmm, the fark’g climate changes.

            8. @ripabo:
              I have no idea what you think you mean by “superseded the Sun’s power.”

              Climate change doesn’t say that humans generate more energy than the sun, and your attempt to create that straw man and then knock it down is really off-base.
              The problem in climate change is that even a few degrees of average temperature change, spread across the entire planet, can create significant changes. The Sun could easily counteract this burning only a slight bit cooler, if the Sun had a brain and was looking out for humanity’s ability to thrive. Unfortunately, the Sun isn’t looking out for us, so we will have to stop causing ourselves problems all by ourselves.

              To explain: If someone is cooking water using a heat source that is at 99 degrees Celsius (1 degree below boiling), and we add a second heat source that increase the ambient temperature by one degree, that second heat source may be fairly small in comparison to the 99 degree heat source, but the water will now boil. That doesn’t mean the 2nd heat source is somehow “superseding the 1st heat source” (whatever that means). It means that, where A and B are both positive numbers, A+B > A, even if B is small. And, if A+B crosses some important threshold (like a boiling point, or a point at which massive amounts of Earth’s ice cap melts, or not enough oxygen remains in ocean water to allow many creatures to live), it doesn’t matter that B is much smaller than A, it matters that B was enough to cause a noticeable (and perhaps very harmful) change.

            9. Of course, I could also go into all kind of explanations… Problem is: When some has a fix idea, doesn’t want to change its way of living, thinking and behaving, no words matter. Many people here just WANT to deny evolution AND the massive damage caused by our style of consuming. And this is just soooo pathetic, that some reactions must rise.

          2. There’s that popular vote nonsense again. There seems to be some correlation between absurdity, hypocrisy, disingenuousness and who those people vote for.

            Sorry but Gore is just the Idiot Hypocrite of the Climate Change (note the capitalization) political movement. I wonder how much private jet fuel Gore will burn promoting his latest farce.

            Do climates change? Of course they do. They have done so for billions of years, without human activity. Is Climate Change real? Climate Change is a political movement that leverages the theory of anthropogenic global warming, to achieve the goals of leftist environmentalist and socialists. I.e. Climate Change vs. climate change.

            You see we “conservatards” don’t reject the theory that dumping ever more co2 into the atmosphere could increase the surface temperature of the earth. Seems completely plausible even from a cursory examination. What we do question is whether or not the outcome will be as dramatic as predicted by climate models that are all but impossible to construct, and what the response should be.

            So lets just assume it is better to be prudent and err on the side of caution. Most conservatives I know agree with that. What they don’t agree with is the proposed solutions that all seem to involve moving vast sums of money from this company to that company or from that company to this government or from this nation to that nation, and so on, all while co2 is still being dumped into the atmosphere.

            It is seen as being, and rightfully so, the mechanics of transfer of wealth layered on top of alarmist Climate Change propaganda.

            It would seem that any reaction to man made climate change should be to reduce the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, not increase taxes. Playing with money just makes me say you’re full of shit. You’re about the money.

            What if, for a change, instead of using punitive measures and higher taxes as the answer to a problem, we created ways for the biggest polluters to MAKE MONEY off cutting down on their co2 emissions? Reward vs. Punishment. What if I said to Company X, if you cut your emissions by X% we will cut your Federal taxes by Y%, and if you get it down to 0, we will grant you a significant tax holiday, like maybe a decade or so.

            So instead of moron ideas like carbon taxes, or carbon credits, which all just amount to money moving around, we give tangible effective INCENTIVE to people to reduce emissions.

            A) Watch how fast people come up with ways to reduce emissions.

            B) Watch how fast the Climate Change Political Front cries FOUL! You’ll see the hypocrisy in bright rainbow colors.


            1. You are making several mistakes in your reasoning and allowing yourself to be a pawn in a dangerous game of climate brinkmanship.
              The argument about man made climate change was proposed, debated and academically accepted over 50 years ago and the colossal amount of peer reviewed research conducted since has not only enforced and proved the concept but also shown that we, mankind, have run out of time…if we wish to turn the clock back, to allow the earth’s natural cycle of climate variation to prevail.
              All you are managing to promote….is yet more discussion and prevarication, such that the major polluters be allowed to carry on whilst asking them nicely to do the right thing. When did that ever happen?
              Why is legislation aimed at protecting both the earth’s and mankind’s future, so hard to accept? We send criminals to prison for endangering society, we have numerous regulations aimed at protecting our health, hospital management, drug development and testing….all for the good of mankind. So what makes the threat of climate change any less worthy of supportive legislation…when it’s for mankind’s benefit?
              It just seems to be a knee jerk reaction with no ethical justification, or a convenient stone of perversity where grinding the axe is reason enough.
              It’s plain bonkers.

            2. “You are making several mistakes in your reasoning and allowing yourself to be a pawn in a dangerous game of climate brinkmanship.”

              That’s funny, EXACTLY what I was thinking about you.

              Theo is absolutely correct. I read nothing in your post of value except to say it is always a good thing to curb pollution wherever possible.

              To set up a globalist government tax and control scheme in the holy name of Mother Earth, seriously? Gotta hand it to Democrats like Gore never wavering in their relentless pursuit of tax dollars and pocketed dollars at citizens expense, wherever they can be mined.

              There are prominent climate scientists that will tell you and have been on record, probably not in the NY Times, it takes centuries of data to come to the conclusion of scientist Gore … 🌎🌞

            3. Gotcha, I don’t think you read what I said at all. I said let’s err on the side of caution first of all. Assume the theory of anthropogenic global warming is absolutely correct. Next instead of passing stupid shit tax increase regulations that do nothing to get co2 out of the atmosphere, let’s pass regulations that grant tax RELIEF based on how much CO2 organizations remove from the atmosphere. There’s your acceptance of the theory and your regulation.

            4. Totally agree and most excellent solution, Theo.

              Put the cause, and not the money, where your mouth is.

              A sensible solution to actually solve the problem. Tax credits and incentives do not cost citizens one penny and will reap results. We will see more of this with President Trump. After all this juvenile Democrat distraction passes.

              Unfortunately, we are talking about the Democrat solution to solving every problem on the planet:

              1. Create a government agency and staff it with like minded Democrats in government unions.
              2. Tax citizens and business to fund the agency and players involved .
              3. Regulate forever.
              4. Oversight and accountability? ROTFL!
              5. We need more money.

              Solve the problem? NEVER … 🌎🌞

            5. Would you guys please explain to the math-challenged among us how “Tax credits and incentives do not cost citizens one penny.” If governments are paying incentives or not collecting the credited taxes, who makes up the difference to balance the government budget?

              If the taxing authority didn’t need the money, it shouldn’t have set the tax rate where it did to begin with. So if it grants some taxpayers relief, it has to make up the difference from other taxpayers. Most state and local governments are legally forbidden to adopt deficit budgets.

              It takes exactly the same amount of administrative overhead (for both the companies and the government bureaucracy) to run a credit system as a penalty system. The distinction makes no difference to the company, since either penalties or credits have an identical effect on the bottom line.

              So, all that shifting from penalties to credits does is shift the cost of reducing emissions from the company stockholders to non-industrial taxpayers, i.e. exactly the working-class and middle-class citizens who voted for Mr. Trump.

            6. On the contrary, the right-wing position for many years has been to deny any anthropogenic influence on global climate. After recognizing that outright denial had become a losing strategy, the next logical step in delaying a legislative response on behalf of special interests is to admit that their is climate change, but grossly downplay the human contribution through FUD, fabrication, and ridiculously skewed interpretations of actual data. Congratulations on reaching Step 2 in the GOP playbook for denIl and obstruction.

            7. Quote “There’s that popular vote nonsense again. There seems to be some correlation between absurdity, hypocrisy, disingenuousness and who those people vote for.”
              Yes alas! And now a Biff Trump is sitting on presidency!

        1. Well, since you’re the expert, please tell us how big the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are.

          Experts like these offer solid data showing the dramatic change: https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/kibo.html

          You can nitpick the semantics of what constitutes loss of glacier versus loss of winter snowpack, or precise predictions of what decade the glaciers will disappear, but the bottom line is that since 1912 when first ice volume estimates were made, Kilimanjaro’s has lost almost all its glacial ice. For the last couple decades, scientists conducted serious studies with a permanent weather station and ice core sampling. These guys have a very good data set to show what’s been going on. But deny away, wise guy. You know better, as always.

      2. The climate has always been changing. Obama’s top guy (Dr. John Bates)…principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, recently came out saying NOAA’s senior officials were playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. How is implementing carbon taxes is going to save the planet? Governments hiding behind this rhetoric to bleed us dry. Hypocrites like him have made millions off this scam, and he is a terrible poster boy for reducing one’s carbon footprint. Do some research on his mansions, jet setting and other extravagant living while telling me what I should do. A big fuck you Al…and all these celebrities who talk the talk, but sure as hell don’t walk it!




            1. You even seam proud to back the pseudo-president Trump… Yet, like him, you’re yourself just un pseudo too… a pseudo human. Because usually a human is supposed to have some brain… even a tiny one.

            2. We will see just how proud you are when he resigns within two years after impeachment process feedings begin. Unlike the all
              Too frequent calls for the impeachment of Obama, Trump
              Will deserve it

        1. climatesepot is sponsored by CFACT, which defines itself as a “positive alternative voice.” In other words, it is a right-wing propaganda outlet spewing volumes of the same skewed and fabricated garbage across multiple web sites to make itself sound like an authority. The commentary is so far to the right that it it can only be described as the Faux News of climate science. Don’t bother posting that crap.

      3. So Mike, let me know if my sources are incomplete and you can prove them false. If so, I got a close to 300 more. All sourced.
        – – Unlike Mann’s raw data that he never released to other scientists so they could test his hockey stick scam.

        1. When you have to rely on a single junk website which seems to worship the contrarian fruit cake that is Dr Dick Lindzen….why the guy still doubts the link between smoking and lung cancer…for your evidence, versus the aligned might of scientific consensus, then you’ve done the job for me.
          It must suck to fail grade school.

      4. Kyrie Irving still subscribes to the world is flat mantra. I look out my window and it looks pretty flat. The real cause of the rising water levels is the moons increasing distance from earth.

      5. Hmmmm, very close to ALL climate scientists say the current global warming is real and human caused. But they are all lying
        – to support globalism
        – and to wreck the power of the West

        Sure is good that we have the ultrarich owners of coal and oil to set things straight and look after us.

      6. There’s global warming in all the solar system, that’s what scientists say BUT OF COURSE IS NOT MANMADE is a natural thing, the powers that be just want to tax humans to oblivion in a Malthusian way to make us poorer.
        That’s why the Antartic continent is melting and scientists are discovering the remnants of Atlantis and john Kerry ( on Election Day!!) Obama and religious figures like the Orthodox Church Pope went to Argentina and Antartica last year. Google it.
        Atlantis was in the tropics but a sudden shift of the poles move it south

      7. Mike, I didn’t know that “published” confirms fact? There’s a few books in the stacks that might lead you astray, fyi. So, your “published science” comment doesn’t confirm your vaulted “scientific reporting” claim. What logical mush.
        In terms of pure logic, say nothing of our positions on the AGW topic, you realize you use an argument that a neophyte could/would reverse on you in a flash? I’m speaking of flat earth deniers, of course. They too thought their views were scientific–so, lets substitute the AGW subscribers in their slot–the logic fits, doesn’t it? Does the sun orbit the earth, or the earth orbit…? If I put a blood sucker on my arm, will I feel better? Humans have been convinced of many important things, only to be proven wrong a few times in history.

    2. You are brainwashed if you automatically discount by huma influence on climate change.

      The extremely complex global climate models are continuing to mature and improve, despite the obstructionism of the GOP over the past couple of decades (e.g., mothballing a global climate mission for many years during the Bush Administration). Scientists continue to collect climate data despite the obstruction and you will soon be forced to face reality. Humans have polluted the oceans and other waterways and deforested substantial portions of continents in a fairly short period of time, geologically speaking. Is it any surprise that we can affect climate by releasing billions of tons of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere? The only questions is the magnitude of the climate impact before the Earth manages to damp the response.

      1. Until there is a unanimous consensus on what is happening and how much we are contributing…I will not be onboard with more taxation (carbon tax) based on suspect opinions and computer models. I believe in protecting the environment, but enforce the laws ALREADY in place. There have been heating and cooling periods of the planet numerous times throughout it’s history. There is plenty of money to be made by this ‘green’ religion based on this. When the government subsides end…so do these companies. Believe me..as a resident of Ontario, Canada…the government here is going full bore on vilifying all fossil fuel and implementing an awful green energy policy that is handicapping our economy and causing our electricity prices to sky rocket and increasing the cost of living and doing business here. How does this help anybody?

        1. “Until there is a unanimous consensus on what is happening and how much we are contributing…I will not be onboard with more taxation (carbon tax) based on suspect opinions and computer modes.”

          Seriously, that is the most succinct paragraph on the topic that says it all. 👍🏻

          Well, if the consensus uses poll methods like in the last election where Shrillary was going to win by a landslide and maintained an 80%+ edge on Election Day — we’re screwed … 🇺🇸

  1. Tim Cook is a SJW fool.

    Rather than taxing everyone with money in order to funnel it to those without under the guise of the global warming fairy tale, let’s tax everyone with money and use it to blow up Mars instead. That would do more to stop so-called climate change than fscking delusional “carbon credits” and other assorted bullshit.

    A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth:

    1. When you said Con Artist perpetuating a sham I thought you were referring to Supply Side economics, NeoConservatism and the Gang Of Perverts. Show me a Social Conservative Male Activist and I will bet you $5 you can find a sexually repressed deviant somewhere in one of their closets. If they are an Evangelical or Catholic Conservative Male Activist air will bet you $20.

      When Paul Ryan’s fact challenged budget numbers add up, call your family and run for the hills- the Zombie Apocalypse or Second Coming of Horus is upon us. One need look no further than Kansas to see that NeoCon economics do not work. The Republicans in Kansas had to back track and (shudder) raise taxes because tax cuts did not grow the economy or increase revenue. To date, no Republican in my 55 years has managed to enact a balanced Federal Budget, but the Clinton/Gore Administration did and was actually retiring the national debt until Dubya was appointed by the Republicans on the SCOTUS. It took little time for the RepubliCONs to return deficits and debt to the Federal Government.

      Just like with fiction and religion, suspension of disbelief is necessary to be a Republican.these days.

  2. Is there another CEO in America more committed to pushing dumbass, failed and destructive ideas that piss off customers and shareholders than Tim Cook? No, his “pipeline” is dumbass ideas.

    1. Clearly you’re offended by Cook’s aapl. Exercise you’re right and buy a Windows machine. You’ll be happier.

      Meanwhile, Cook’s aapl continued it march toward $800,000,000,000 valuation and remains the most valuable company in the world.

      1. So, NOW money is EVERYTHING to a Liberal? I could have sworn Libs were always against capitalism and big evil business. Please enlighten us on your change of heart …

  3. Hey, Pipeline, how about doing your actual job for a change instead of promoting hokum designed to separate the easily duped from their money?

  4. Goreasm…Apple supporting all this is idiotic. Apple can’t even ship computers anymore. First time in my life I’m considering a non Mac. WTH Apple?

  5. What a club of morons, around here! Denying men’s influence by the tones of pollution spat all over?
    It’s really time to wake up, even Donald Biff Trumps will do anything to throw even more dirt around… Making America Great Stupid Again!

  6. Not only that, but Al Gore claims that the earth revolves around the sun. Just this morning, I saw the sun RISE. What kind of fool does he take us for?

    I’m betting that he is also a proponent of the so-called “germ” theory. Everybody knows that disease is caused by miasmas and bad humors. Who has ever seen one of these “germs” with the naked eye? If I can’t see it, I won’t believe it. It is all just a scam to get “bacteriologists” the government money that would be better spent on witch doctors and faith healers. Microscopes? Another scam.

    These elitist snobs look down on people who don’t spend 19 years of education and five years of post-doc training to understand what they claim to be complicated stuff. If you can’t explain it in a comic book for guys that dropped out of high school, it must not be real. Fake news like the greenhouse effect, vaccines, and any date before 4004 BC.

    As I used to explain to people who thought the legal system was a scam because only lawyers understood it, the real scammers are doctors. They claim that if you have an aggressive brain cancer and don’t hire one of them, you’ll die.

    1. Smog
      Tobacco causing cancer
      Poisons in water
      Red dye #5
      Love Canal
      Exploding trains
      Flames coming out of domestic water taps
      Massive oil pipeline leaks
      Supposed dangers of radioactive waste
      Coal slurry in rivers

      None of it has ever happened or even will. All lies and bullshit exaggeration of a few TINY incidents involving ten people at the most… by scientists and liberals who just have a personal grudge against the Koch Brothers and their friends.

      Trust the health of your grandchildren to David and Charles. That who REALLY cares abou you. The billionaires. The coal slurry in the rivers won’t hurt your grandchildren. Yehhhh, that’s the ticket.

    2. Even to explain it in a comic book it’ll need a good one… some brain must be around to get a slice of it. But when people WANT to refuse explanation, no matter the form you’ll use: it just won’t be accepted.
      America is on its way to idiocracy, we sadly have to admit it.

      1. Ahhhh, no!

        America is finally freed from the group-think dumb dem dogma servitude and told the truth for the first time in eight years.

        America has buried political correctness and other forms of assaults on free speech on Nov. 8, 2016.

        America is embarking on a resurgence of hope and change for ALL Americans, not just the identity groups the Dems pander to for campaign contributions.

        America in command of truth and facts, full steam ahead … 🇺🇸😄🇺🇸😄🇺🇸

  7. ” … and so I think there has never been a better time for this film.’”

    And so I think there has never been a more concerted and deliberate collusion effort, by the Democrat party in one week, to delegitimize a Republican President couple days after giving one of the greatest state of the U.S. speeches of all time.

    The sad part is Tim’s personal politics is sucking Apple and all its employees into political chicanery that in the end picks sides. Steve would have stopped this partisan practice in its tracks … 😡

        1. Thanks, forgot about that. The $130,000 was most likely a contribution with a gift twist. One night stay in the Highness House. Not sure of Apple’s history regarding political contributions. But that is not the topic, for now.

          What txuser fails to see, as do many others, is recognizing the level of political involvement of the two CEOs and taking into account their personal philosophy regarding politics and business.

          Steve was non-partisan for the lion share part and preached the company stay out of politics as to not affect business.

          PipeDream Tim preaches leftist politics almost every week and thus involves Apple and all its employees by signing on to back the right to pee law, and other leftist causes we are aware of.

          What part do people not understand?

          Question for Apple HR dept., if they have one. What if you are a conservative Apple employee that voted for President Trump. Do you remain in the closet at work to avoid discrimination or does Apple celebrate ALL workers rights? Or, does Apple discriminate by not hiring conservative employees to offend the safe space snowflakes? 🤔

          1. My guess would be that most Apple employees have taken college science courses. ALL of them have taken high school science courses. They believe in science.

            They understand the basic principle, discovered in the 1880s, that carbon dioxide and some other gases in the atmosphere trap solar radiation faster than they can radiate it back into space until the temperature of the gas rises to a new radiation equilibrium point.

            You can drag in solar cycles and anything else you like, but the fact remains that there is a positive correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures. Higher levels of greenhouse gases equal higher temperatures. That is a fact. Period. Full stop.

            Yes, there may be other factors, but it is a scientific certainty that rising CO2 levels will—all other things being equal—inevitably cause rising temperatures. It is also a fact that burning fossil fuels is the major contributor to rising CO2 levels. Not even debatable, since there is no other comparable source.

            Looking out my window in Central Texas (a few miles from the second-largest concentration of Apple employees in North America), I can see a flock of white-winged doves going by. I do not see any mourning doves. When I moved to the area forty-five years ago, mourning doves were everywhere and white-wings were not found in appreciable numbers outside South Texas. The ranges of the two species have shifted well over a hundred miles to the north in less than half a century.

            In 1972, the peak bluebonnet season was in April; now we are seeing some blooming in February. That isn’t just a transitory phenomenon, but a consistent long-term trend. It is obvious to anybody who spends time outside their parents’ basement.

            Apple employees have been here for over a quarter-century, and they can see the significant changes in flora and fauna just like I can. They are not blind—either to the world around them or to the science behind their observations. So, my guess is that they are just fine with their employer taking a position on this issue.

            1. I guess you missed in the 1970s on the covers of major newsmagazines, Global Cooling?

              Science is not set in stone and evolves constantly. And yes, nature and the sun is cyclical and plays more of a role. And yes indeed, scientific opinions vary greatly just like politics. The quality of snowflake scientists are not the same today as back in the day when the teachers unions were not political pawns of the PC liberals.

              I agree reducing emissions is always a good thing. Read Theo’s post on the subject how to get it done with common sense solutions and without the call for global bureaucracy and taxation SCHEMES to benefit scientist Gore and his like minded cronies.

              When Democrats are put in charge to solve a problem, it NEVER gets solved. They get rich, employ their buddies and pontificate on how important their work is in the clueless media and accept meaningless awards.

              Just look at Al Gore’s connections and net worth. While your at it, check the “we left the White House broke” Clintons present day tax returns and all the problems they solved.

              “So, my guess is that they are just fine with their employer taking a position on this issue.”

              Like they have a choice? I’d like to hear from them and also conservatives that work for Apple. I can’t imagine Apple would discriminate against those employees that voted for President Trump …

            2. I am quite confident that no “evolution in science” is going to alter the observed absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. It will continue to be the fact that increased CO2 levels in a mixed gas will raise its radiation equilibrium temperature.

              It will continue to be the fact that the complete combustion of one molecule of heptane (H₃C(CH₂)₅CH₃, the primary component in gasoline) will generate eight molecules of CO2. It will continue to be the fact that converting a grove of trees into a subdivision both generates new CO2 and reduces the consumption of old CO2. I am absolutely certain that no new scientific discovery is going to change any of that.

              The “global cooling” thing was newsworthy (in the popular press, not the professional literature) at the time because it flew in the face of established science. Hardly anybody believed it in the 1970s and nobody believes it now. Continuing to bring it up is the reddest of red herrings.

              With all respect to both you and Theo, your economics is as peculiar as your physics. Charging carbon producers $10 in extra taxes for a given volume of greenhouse gas and granting that same producer a $10 tax credit for not producing the gas has exactly the same impact on THEIR behavior. If the cost of compliance is less than $10, they will comply. If it is greater than $10, they won’t. In the one case, it costs them $10 in taxes not to comply; in the other, it saves them $10 in taxes to comply. Either way, there is the same impact on the bottom line.

              The only real difference between credits for compliance and penalties for noncompliance is the impact on the tax-collecting entity and its other taxpayers. If the government uses penalties, noncompliance generates $10 in additional revenue that can theoretically be used to mitigate the damages caused by overproduction of greenhouse gas. If the government uses credits, compliance generates $10 less revenue for the government, which has to be made up in some way, either by raising taxes on the other taxpayers, cutting their services, or increasing the deficit. That last choice is not an option for the majority of states and local governments, which are required to have balanced budgets.

            3. While I appreciate the cut and paste science lesson, the issue is much broader than that.

              “Hardly anybody believed it in the 1970s and nobody believes it now. Continuing to bring it up is the reddest of red herrings.”

              Global warming is a red herring, the absolute grandest and reddest of all time!

              So now you are talking about public opinion — not science. I thought it was science that put out the dire global cooling warning in the first place. Hmmm?

              Nobody believes global cooling back then? Oooooh, but now everybody believes Global warming? Got it. Don’t buy it.

              Sounds like what you and your ilk care about is public opinion science. If the media goes along, wow, you hit the mother lode! All the Democrats will ever need to attempt to control world energy, tax and regulate all nations in the holy name of Mother Earth.

              Reducing emissions is certainly, always, a laudable goal and bring it on. Theo laid out the best argument on how to accomplish without the control freaks in the Democrat Party with their greased hands out … 🇺🇸

            4. GoeB,
              I know it’s hard, but try to understand what you read. I didn’t say that “global cooling” was wrong because it was unpopular, but because it isn’t true. It was never true, which is WHY only a small minority of scientists and a headline writer at Newsweek ever repeated the theory. When it’s falsity became apparent to them, even that minority acknowledged the truth.

              You still haven’t explained how, under the generally understood laws of physics, increased CO2 can fail to increase the global average temperature. Sure, there are some very complex interactions that make it super hard to predict the exact rate, but the general correlation between greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect is inescapable. Nobody can reasonably deny it if they can understand ninth-grade physical science and aren’t on an energy company payroll.

              Again, I am not saying that anthropogenic global warming is true because 95% of the qualified scientists in relevant fields believe it. They believe it because the preponderance of credible evidence shows that it is true.

              The changes in Central Texas flora and fauna over the past few decades I described above are obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Sea level rises over the past century can be exactly quantified. Any visitor to northern Alaska can see open water where ice used to be and mud where permafrost used to be. That isn’t liberal propaganda or fake news; it is incontestable fact.

              Ignoring that inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase) isn’t just like an ostrich hiding his head in the sand so he won’t see the predators coming. It is like sticking your head into mud that will smother and kill you.

              Using tax credits, rather than penalties, to incentivize the reduction of carbon emissions simply shifts the costs from the companies to the rest of the tax paying public without any discernible benefit to anyone but the shareholders. As with the physics issue, you have refused to provide any response to that argument.

            5. GoeB—assuming you aren’t botvinnik or The President—

              You seem to share their inability to distinguish between opinion and facts. You can argue about opinions. You can even argue against facts by providing countervailing credible evidence.

              You cannot simply ignore the evidence because you do not like the factual conclusions it inevitably implies. Physics is physics and economics is economics whether you agree with their laws or not. To argue otherwise is one step from claiming you can walk on water because your opinion is as good as those damn scientists.

            6. Tx — you don’t seem to grasp — while we live lives absolutely INFESTED by and utterly dependent on thousands of branches of science, THIS one particular branch of science is completely wrong. Right, GoeB?

          2. I think this problem doesn’t occur. Most, if not all Apple employees are pretty smart and use their brain for making things going forwards. Most probably none made such a nonsense to vote for Trump.

            1. What you think is Libtard sophistry opinion and totally inconsequential. All the so called smart people, smart money, went down in beautiful flames with the worst and most corrupt presidential candidate in history.

              And the best part is they were so stupid listening to the biased lame stream media and NEVER saw it coming. Yeah, tell me again how smart they are.

              Hopefully, the smartest critically thinking Apple employees voted for Trump and they can think for themselves …

            2. You’re speaking about the actual real billionaire but pseudo-president Trump, i suppose. Well, good deal: running after money and ruining soils and air. Wow! Good job! Really! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

  8. Voting Trump = collective suicide!
    Before, we where cutting the branch we’re sitting on with a manual saw… now it’s with a chain saw! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
    Well: we all gonna die someday… 💣👻

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.