Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the inconvenient-shareholders dept.

Businesses 572

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."

cancel ×

572 comments

Horsecock and sodomy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302632)

Sodomy and horsecock.

Re:Horsecock and sodomy (1, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302640)

Sounds about as relevant as this news article.

Hey wait, there's a whale in trouble, I've gotta get out of here and save her!

Re:Horsecock and sodomy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302674)

Leave your mother out of this.

Re:Horsecock and sodomy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302890)

So who likes ponies? [horseloving.com]

Clearly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302638)

Al Gore must melt the glaciers to retain his position on Apple's board

Fools. (1, Troll)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302668)

Well, at least the shareholders aren't buying into "sustainability" scam.

Re:Fools. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302700)

If there's even the slightest chance global warming is a hoax, we should feel free to use as much energy and non-renewable resources as possible because we'll figure out a way to work around it when they're much more difficult to come by. You believe in technology and human ingenuity, don't you?

Re:Fools. (0, Troll)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302714)

Yeah, pretty much. Whoever modded me troll obviously doesn't understand what I was trying to say, beyond bashing AGW. IMPLEMENTING "GREEN" POLICIES ISN'T A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION.

Re:Fools. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302748)

IMPLEMENTING "GREEN" POLICIES ISN'T A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION.

Yeah, a lot of companies thought that way, and ended up polluting places, and then going out of business, leaving the rest of us to clean it up.

Not implementing "green" policies is a bad social decision.

Re:Fools. (1, Insightful)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302784)

Most green policies are BS, even if you think global warming is real. They are the equivalent of turning down the radio in a Hummer to save gas. However, renewable energy is a potentially profitable business, because its raw material (wind, sun, tides, etc.) is free. The problem is that it is rarely profitable, because the cost of the energy conversion devices (turbines, solar panels, etc.) are very expensive. There are a variety of reasons why this is the case, but the low cost was unfortunately not designed in at the start (rare and ultrapure materials were used). If the devices cost a lot less, renewable energy would be extremely profitable.

Re:Fools. (-1, Offtopic)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302932)

I get modded flamebait and troll and this gets modded informative? ....I'll be here all day, mods. Keep throwing dem apples. And tomorrow too!

Re:Fools. (2, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302716)

Also, the Christian god wouldn't allow the earth to become uninhabitable.

I've known one AGW denier to use that argument.

Re:Fools. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302906)

That's disturbing on a lot of levels.

Re:Fools. (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302934)

My typical argument with these people is,

Me: "So, God gave us dominion over the Earth, correct? He put us in charge of His creation?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "So, if a parent told their children, 'We're going to be out for an hour. We're leaving you in charge of the house while we're goine,' and they came home and the house was burned down... how happy do you think they'd be with their children?"

Re:Fools. (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302952)

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.

Re:Fools. (1, Troll)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303044)

Most Christians I know think that climate change is real and that man will destroy the world. None can give any examples or facts other than to point to "Day After Tommorow."

Most atheists and agnostics I know question (or deny - but that seems to be a dirt word nowadays)the validity of man-cause global warming.

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..."

Flamewar imminent (3, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302684)

You're practically begging the denialists to come out and play. ...oh, it's a kdawson article. Carry on, then.

Re:Flamewar imminent (5, Funny)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302724)

Make sure you use biofuels for those flames, or purchase carbon offsets. Otherwise this thread will become a major contributor to global warming.

Re:Flamewar imminent (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302744)

"denialists", eh? I guess we can infer from that that you will be in there trolling...

Re:Flamewar imminent (4, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302754)

The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.

Oh, wait. I know the answer:

ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE [slate.com]

(Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs. But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.)

Re:Flamewar imminent (4, Funny)

attonitus (533238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302814)

I'm a mathematician and I resent that wildebeest

Re:Flamewar imminent (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302856)

Feilding, Campbell-Newman and a few other engineers that couldn't do it and got into politics are batshit insane but most of the rest of us are not.
The problem is we are turning into societies that love technology but really hate the underlying science. All the "don't tell me about it until I can buy it at Walmart" posts that are starting to infest this site are a symptom of that. They just want magic and are starting to think just talking about physical things can make them real instead of the process of people knowing how to do things and then making it real.
It's bad news that reality involves tradeoffs to make things fit and they never want to hear the bad news. We've had a century of nearly free energy with the tradeoff of altering the atmosphere, and various idiots would not believe that even if we could tell them what time it's going to rain tomorrow morning. Others demand to know details like that and do not understand that wide trends can be predicted without knowing to the second when it's going to start raining.

Re:Flamewar imminent (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303068)

I simply credit it to the "I can do it!" attitude that leads people to become engineers or CS people in the first place. The sense that you're smart enough to understand everything and capable enough to figure everything out. Even when you're not. It's a great attitude to have in an engineer, but it has the side effect of them assuming that they know more than people who actually do know what they're talking about.

Re:Flamewar imminent (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302756)

Re:Flamewar imminent (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302796)

You over-estimate the mentality of most of the people who will be rising to kdawson's flamebait.

Re:Flamewar imminent (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302858)

over-estimating people on Slashdot is a hobby of mine. It occasionally wakes up the low uids.

 

Who are the denailists? (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302828)

One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.

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

Science got way lost in the middle of this whole debate. Indeed the very term "debate" is laughable, as it is currently a which hunt on both sides.

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

Re:Who are the denailists? (-1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302848)

You sound like one of the retards who say that one shouldn't bother to vote in the USA because it's all just one Party. You, sir, are intellectually lazy.

Re:Who are the denailists? (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302914)

You sound like one of the retards who say that one shouldn't bother to vote in the USA

First, I'll ignore the politically incorrect slur, and the further attempt at demonization that serves only to make people think less of you, not me.

Secondly, what does one have to do with the other? Is it so wrong to ask that long-term science be untangled from the rapacious tentacles of political actors like some really bad anime that I have no choice but to watch, and which comes with a dub that is simply an overlay of the dialog track from Gigli?

Thirdly, I would urge everyone to vote, ESPECIALLY if there were really only one party (which I do not claim, I leave arguing that fantasy to yourself). Of course the key is to vote from the bottom up, to vote in people from below at the local level until they rise to the top. When there's only one party and no-one cares about politics it's very easy to make your views felt.

Three strikes - you're wrong.

Re:Who are the denailists? (5, Funny)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302924)

it is currently a which hunt on both sides.

Well, man, don't leave me hanging! Which hunt is it?

Re:Who are the denailists? (5, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302978)

Well, man, don't leave me hanging! Which hunt is it?

Why not check to see witch one floats.

Re:Who are the denailists? (1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302948)

you sir have hit the nail on the head. there is often very little science on both sides this debate. a lot of the ranting reminds me of an emotional 13yo girl screaming about how we have to save the world.

Re:Who are the denailists? (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303006)

I want to give you a hug, man. (But I won't. I respect your personal space.)

I'm one of those guys who suspects that global warming is probably a real phenomenon, but that its coverage in the media is mostly-fake, its coverage in science proper is mildly biased and exxagerated as an institutional matter (cf. 'climategate', overrated as it may be) and the public policy prescriptions that are preached by Al Gore are mostly nonsense. But more importantly, the state of the "debate" is shameful.

Do I get to be called a "denialist" too?

Re:Who are the denailists? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303058)

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. Science isn't fair or balanced. The atmosphere doesn't care if you believe in greenhouse gases or not.

The state of the "debate" is indeed shameful.

Re:Who are the denailists? (5, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303092)

One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.

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

Yes, but one side also happens to be wrong.

Apple (-1, Flamebait)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302706)

Is there anyone out there who still believes Apple isn't evil?

Re:Apple (1)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302736)

sure, i don't, at least i don't consider them especially evil. did you have a point at all?

All part of the business plan? (5, Funny)

Nov Voc (1619289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302718)

Clearly, Apple is trying to get rid of Linux as a competitor by melting the homes of penguins everywhere. Of course, they're not taking BSD into account...

Re:All part of the business plan? (0)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302760)

bsd penguins can tolerate higher temperatures?

Re:All part of the business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302886)

Silly davester, the BSD mascot is a demon. From Hell.

I understand Hell's pretty warm, though I've never been there myself.

Re:All part of the business plan? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302938)

Home schooled then, were you?

Re:All part of the business plan? (0)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302982)

The BSD mascot is an actual demon, as opposed to the fake church website posting about how "daemons" in the linux operating system were proof of its innate satanism. And not all home schooled kids have religious backgrounds; some just didn't like the fucked up school system in this country.

Re:All part of the business plan? (2, Funny)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302896)

Of course, they're not taking BSD into account...

Apple probably figures the fundamentalists will take care of BSD, what with their mascot being a daemon and all . . .

Re:All part of the business plan? (4, Informative)

larkost (79011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303008)

I know this was supposed to be humorous, but you do know that only a very small minority of penguins actaully live where it snows, right? The empror penguins live in one of the most inhospitable locations on the planet (south pole... so nowhere near the polar bears at the north pole), but most species of penguins live quite a bit north of there on coasts that never freeze. So the only way globabl warming is likely to kill off the penguins is by raising sea lelels enough to wipe out their traditional hatching grounds. And that is probably going to happen slowly enough that they will move those up-hill.

Re:All part of the business plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303040)

Of course, they're not taking BSD into account...

Who does?

Re:All part of the business plan? (2, Funny)

Graff (532189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303114)

The real news is that, according to the article, Steve Jobs is planning on using Apple's $40 billion in cash to throw a toga party!

Besides the environment, many homed in on the theme of just what Apple plans on doing with all that cash it has sitting around--approximately $40 billion in reserve, Apple reported last quarter. One shareholder asked if Apple might consider investing in electric-car maker Tesla. To that, Jobs replied he was planning on throwing "a toga party" with the money instead.

chill out shareholders (-1, Troll)

macbiv (1695966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302720)

hey take it easy on the guy, he invented the internet ya know...

Re:chill out shareholders (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302770)

Another lie perpetuated by his haters

Re:chill out shareholders (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302778)

Correction: The quote as that he "took the initiative in creating the internet". And that is correct [wikipedia.org] , at least as far as the internet as we know it today.

Creating != Inventing.

Carry on.

Re:chill out shareholders (1, Offtopic)

macbiv (1695966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302908)

Further Correction: Making Joke != Asking for History Lesson

Re:chill out shareholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302954)

Further correction: Telling lie (as macbiv did), even in the guise of a "joke," == Asking for history lesson. Although dishonest people won't listen to the lesson, so maybe it doesn't really matter.

Re:chill out shareholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302998)

There was a joke?

Re:chill out shareholders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302926)

Creating != Inventing.

Odd. I looked up the word "invent" in the dictionary. The definition is "create or design."

Maybe I should check the thesaurus instead. Hm. It says that "create" is a synonym.

So I guess "creating the Internet" and "inventing the Internet" would, in fact, be equivalent phrases!

Re:chill out shareholders (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303032)

Create, definition 1: [reference.com] "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."

Invent, definition 1: [reference.com] "to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph."

Clear?

Next we'll be having to debate the definition of "is". :P The "Gore Bill" turned ARPANET into the internet. Feel free to hate the guy, but he deserves credit for this.

Re:chill out shareholders (1, Interesting)

cuncator (906265) | more than 4 years ago | (#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]

Flamebait (4, Insightful)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302726)

How do i mod the whole article -1 flamebait?

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302842)

Unfortunately you can't, but the flamebait tag fits.

Re:Flamebait (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303002)

A good headline would be, "Half of Apple's Shareholders Are Dead Wrong But Vehemently Certain They Are Correct". ;)

Doesn't have to specify which side is which ;)

In the long run... (-1, Flamebait)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302730)

In the long run, the climate change denialists will look a lot like the kinds of people who still doubt evolution. We just have to hope we can protect the environment well enough that their "oops" doesn't doom us all.

Re:In the long run... (-1, Flamebait)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302750)

You realize, of course, that there isn't any hard evidence that supports Darwin's theory of evolution.

Re:In the long run... (0, Offtopic)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302808)

Just curious how I got modded to Troll status for pointing to an obvious fact. I believe in evolution, by the way. It's just that there's no hard evidence to back it up.

Re:In the long run... (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302990)

It's just that there's no hard evidence to back it up.

That's completely untrue. Read Dawkins' new book for a good discussion of why geographical distribution and gene frequency are more than enough proof to support evolution, even if we had never found a single fossil.

Re:In the long run... (1, Informative)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302802)

One of the biggest disservices we can do to the cause is to talk of doom scenarios. The planet isn't heading for doom, nor are we, even if there was a 5-10C temperature increase.

The economy might be fucked and hunger might kill of large portions of the human race... But that's not the same as being doomed.

Re:In the long run... (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302820)

So could I paraphrase you as, "F*** Al Gore: Because We're Not *All* Going To Die" ?

How about the alternative (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303096)

"No Chicken Little, the sky is not really falling"

A loudmouthed yahoo is front-page news? (1, Flamebait)

Abies Bracteata (317438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302774)

We get loudmouthed know-nothings like Shelton Ehrlich at our homeowner association meetings. All they do is make a lot of noise and annoy everyone else. If our loudmouths started ranting about global-warming at our HOA meetings instead of complaining about leaf-blowers and such, they'd probably get front-page coverage too. But for the sake of my neighbors, I won't tell *them* that.

Who cares? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302798)

I think Al Gore is a pretty cool guy. He saves the environment and doesn't afraid of anything.

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302816)

That's Japanese for "Attack! Attack! Attack!" and it seems to be the mantra of the right. No, not the right, there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we can't ignore. After all, doesn't conservativism have some connection with conservation [wikipedia.org] ?

Let's call them the Lazy Right. Coming up with arguments is too much work, so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are. If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name. I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing, and somebody who disagreed with me said "The only thing you've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they're 11."

Come one people. Maybe you're right, and we're wrong. But you'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.

And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left. And even if they are, how does that justify responding in kind?

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (-1, Offtopic)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302836)

You'll be modded into oblivion shortly, if the moderation that's already been applied to this article's comments is any indication.

Unsurprisingly, the wingnuts can't deal with any opinions that differ from their own.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (3, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302868)

And yet they'll at the same time start complaining about how they're being oppressed by moderation, even though they'll easily be dominating in the mod count. Mark my words.

It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302970)

It's really ridiculous. What ever happened to modding based on how reasonably a person is debating rather than whether the person matches your political ideology?

Eh, when I get mod points, I only use negatives on stuff that's actually trolling. Goatse, the copypasta stuff, that sort of thing. I figure I do my side better by upping the good posts, rather than minusing the opposing posts, ya know? Even then, yes, if I hit a post that makes me reevaluate my position, even for a second, I'll give it a bump too. I'm just wacky that way.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302992)

They'll complain about how the liberals "dominate" Slashdot, and how the poor conservatives have no chance, and get modded up to +5, insghtful. Posting anonymously to keep my karma intact for now.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0, Offtopic)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302882)

Not off topic at all. And for the record, I'm about as left as it gets.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0, Offtopic)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303012)

The only moderation on this thread has been modding me down and modding everybody else up, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302852)

Technically "Tora" translates to "Tiger" or in the case of the film, to attack or otherwise confront.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302910)

I think there are people that way on both sides of the debate. In fact, regardless of the position you take you are going to be torn down by someone. If you don't believe in warming, you are an industry shill, if you do believe in warming, you are a communist out to destroy people's livelihoods.
I just wish all this carbon credit and sustainability nonsense would go away until we've dealt with things like heavy metal toxicity, industrial runoff, and other environmentally destructive things happening now . Once the fish kills and red tides that happen regularly now are taken care of we can start worrying about things that will, at worst, affect the planet several decades from now in the most outlandish doomsday scenarios. As an added bonus there will be decades more data to base trend prediction on to silence once and for all any debate from either side about not having reliable data to fit projections to.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303062)

I just wish all this carbon credit and sustainability nonsense would go away until we've dealt with things like heavy metal toxicity, industrial runoff, and other environmentally destructive things happening now.

What part of sustainability precludes tackling any of these other issues? As a species, we're capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

As an added bonus there will be decades more data to base trend prediction on to silence once and for all any debate from either side about not having reliable data to fit projections to.

Are you kidding? We could have decades of data completely in line with what we expect from global warming theory, and the head-in-the-sand crowd (the deniers, not the genuine skeptics) will be saying exactly the same as what they are now. "The temperature record has been fabricated", "It's still just natural warming", "It's a conspiracy to get grant money", "I'm cold today", "Al Gore is fat", "God controls the weather", or they'll just outright lie and make up quotes from the scientists denying the warming.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (1, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303080)

Um, so nationalized medicine and banking isn't socialism? How would define those two things, and how would you define socialism?

I voted for Obama and don't consider myself a conservative, but what he and his administration are pushing is indeed socialism by any traditional definition of the word.

It's not 'scare jargon,' it's reality. Wake the fuck up.

Equally Lazy (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303078)

If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name.

Why is it not equally lazy to paint all "right wingers" as Birthers, and people who cannot argue with science even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW - in many aspects turning out to be right in doing so? Those who questioned "glaciers melting before 2035" were laughed at as loons before and told the science was carefully studied, when it turned out it was not. Why can YOU not believe there are and can be scientists who do not agree with the current AGW theories?

Your whole post frankly struck me as full of such lazy stereotyping, with no effort on your part made to understand the reasoning behind those who do not buy into the same group-think you do.

Re:Tora! Tora! Tora! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303082)

I'm feeding a troll. However, if you want to see the attack types, sit down at a bar at a ski resort, and point to the organic beer on tap and say "what's that". When the barkeep says it's an organic lager, say "no, thanks. I don't do organic food." Someone will say "why" and respond with "I can't morally support lowering crop yields while people are starving in ." I've found that even though I'm a right-wing nutjob, I've got nothing on the hatred and attack mentality of your average college-educated type. It's scarry. Who needs conspiracy theories when there are people like that. I fear the world my daughters will live in. They're either going to be property under Sharia or free to do anything they can afford to be taxed for.

Thunk dumb. (4, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302818)

Wow, apple stockholders must be really dumb.

Because, seriously? Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years. How is that not common knowledge?

Re:Thunk dumb. (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302902)

Dude, they bought Apple stock.. you didn't think "dumb luck" was just a saying did ya?

Re:Thunk dumb. (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302940)

If the comments on Slashdot earlier today are any indication, it is whoever is loudest that gets the attention, not who is actually representative of the demographics of the group as a whole. In this case, the bashing of Gore was self-selecting. Those who were very against what Gore was advocating spoke up loudly leaving the remainder of the group that was outspoken to either defend or bash Gore. After CRU it wasn't hard to see how general opinion of Gore would go into the toilet for some people.

Re:Thunk dumb. (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302962)

Ummm, really, like this comment is like, you know, like, YOU KNOW? And scored as: Insightful. Think about that, people.

Re:Thunk dumb. (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302966)

What, you expect lack of knowledge on an issue to stop people from commenting on it? You *don't* expect to hear straw men?

Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment. First off, most glaciers are in decline [nasa.gov] , so they're wrong. But more importantly, AGW does not mean that all glaciers will decline. Glacier melt rates certainly affect rate of flow. But so does snowfall rate, and there are a good number of lesser factors (for example, how strongly pack ice holds back the front of the glacier). Some glaciers almost never experience temperatures above freezing, so melt rate isn't a significant issue for them; it's all about the balance between snowfall and discharge rate (which partly depends on pack ice if it reaches the sea). Snowfall rate and how well pack ice is retained depends on how weather patterns and ocean currents and temperatures change in the area. In most areas, the average precipitation increases in AGW scenarios. Oceans generally warm (although not evenly, thanks in large part to thermohaline cycling). And ocean currents vary. So you can't make any general comment about how all glaciers will react.

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.

It's really a shame that Gore picked that case, because most glacier declines that have been studied have been determined to be primarily due to warming (esp. inland/temperate/mountain glaciers). But not Kilimanjaro.

Re:Thunk dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303038)

Because your not think different.

Re:Thunk dumb. (2, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303054)

global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.

Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.

DumbdotNewsforIdiots (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303088)

Wow, slashdot commenters must be really dumb.

Because, seriously? There are nine hundred and some million shares of Apple stock on the market, and extrapolating from a single loudmouthed shareholder, who was voted down on the issue in question no less, to the views of all of the thousands of others is completely unjustifiable. How is that not common sense?

Climate Change Policy Hinges On Keynote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31302874)

From TFA:

He would call their cell and say "I heard about these bees in South America, check it out for me" or "I came up with a way to make this section more powerful, why don't you think about this or that."

In other words, the most important issue is Design -- evidence and science are for adding a marginal logical appeal to the ethos and pathos that really matter! The problem with this, of course, is that the entire movement becomes premised on bullshit -- even if climate change is true, what matters is public opinion and not that actual concrete and specific harms. So we end up overlooking the serious synergistic problems and long-term solutions for short-term marketable hype (think: hybrids)

Don't understand the hostility... (2, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302928)

I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters. I'm sure there is bad behavior on the other side, but the vitriol of the non-believers really confuses me - the recent gleeful mocking on all the Fox News programs during the recent snow storms comes to mind (regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing).

Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book. I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.

Flame me unbelievers, but not too much lest you warm the planet :-)

Re:Don't understand the hostility... (-1, Troll)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303014)

It's because they don't have facts on their side, but rather rely on a mindset that still views snide observations and "folksey" sayings as more true than anything that relies only on science. Plus they feel persecuted, and like to take any advantage to get in a dig at the other side. Like the man said, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."

The fallacy of the other path (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303050)

I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.

Pretty simple, the naturally human instinct is payback for years of mockery. And indeed why should only one side be allowed vitrol and mockery and demand it not be turned against them when the tide of fate ebbs for them?

I don't think it's productive but it's understandable, and honestly well deserved.

Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book. I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.

Do you believe in God? Because you have just stated you must. After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?

Such is the power of the Precautionary Principal [pajamasmedia.com] which is what your argument relies upon.

Here is what I know from years of traveling the world. If you want to see true devastation, you have only to travel to where people are generally poor. It's hard to save a forest when millions are looking for firewood (see: Haiti).

So you claim we should look upon hurting people in an economic downturn as a small consequence to avert potential disaster, but all I can envision is a global environmental cataclysm as economies fall and people do what they do best - survive at any cost.

Far better to invest heavily in alternative energy now, like nuclear and solar, so that we can all get off the oil train. The chances of GW actually causing enough problems to really bother us all before we can make that happen are to my mind exceedingly low vs. the certainty of what happens when we make a whole lot of people poor.

Re:Don't understand the hostility... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303066)

Some of us acknowledge the presence of global warming but have this antiquated idea that government shouldn't step in--that it should be our decision as to whether or not we do anything about it. Because in the end this is just going to be another big power-grab and erosion of rights by the US government.

Article is Flamebait (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302946)

Stunning that something as obviously slanted and ignorant as the posting made slashdot.

Oh, right - it's slashdot. Where no one reads TFA and everyone thinks "the Market will fix it". Like Magic.

Re:Article is Flamebait (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31302960)

moar liek it's kdawson.

Re:Article is Flamebait (0, Redundant)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303022)

The market will indeed fix it. Cap-n-trade isn't a market.

Re:Article is Flamebait (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31303074)

The market will indeed fix it. Cap-n-trade isn't a market.

I particularly liked how the parent post complained about flamebait and then.... proceeded to flamebait.

Are they doing crack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303004)

I've never heard ANYONE claim all the glaciers would melt over the last ten years. The largest glaciers are over 10,000 feet thick. If we sent in the air force to bomb them with thermite they wouldn't melt in ten years. He said expect major changes over the next 100 years not 10 years and he never once claimed the end of all glaciers even in a 100 years. I don't know which side is whackier the ones claiming the world is ending or the ones denying anything is happening in the first place. I live in central Maine and we have spring weather right now while the center of the country is dealing with record snow. That's climate change but the glaciers still won't melt overnight. The worst numbers I heard were half of Greenland melting in a 100 years with 300 years more likely and some claiming a 1,000 years. Most actually thought Antarctica would remain largely unaffected but there's evidence of melt there as well. Will half of it melt in the next 100 years? No. I've yet to hear a single source claiming that, a reliable source no some wacko that thinks the world is going to end on their watch. The climate is changing whether you agree with Al Gore or not. Belief in Al Gore has nothing to do with climate change. If you want sudden change I'd look out for asteroids 10 to 20+ miles across. Otherwise you'll have to be patient. Climate change takes time and it doesn't care who supports it or is against it or which political party is in control.

keep the politicians out of science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31303064)

We should keep the politicians out of science, it discredits the process. Facts can speak for themselves.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...