Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting

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."

Comments

Fools.

[rmushkatblat]

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

Re:Fools.

[JackieBrown]

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..."

Re:Fools.

[khallow]

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?"

The better analogy would be that the parent comes back and finds that the kids have turned up the heat from 68 to 72.

Re:Fools.

[bartwol]

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?"

The better analogy would be that the parent comes back and finds that the kids have turned up the heat from 68 to 72.

But now you've moved from a weak, over-dramatized metaphor to a realistic perspective.

Analogies like yours can turn a sensational story in a bunch of not-particularly-exciting facts.

Re:Who are the denailists?

[timmarhy]

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:Don't understand the hostility...

[techno-vampire]

(regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing)

Actually, the models were corrected to "predict" this after the fact.

Re:wind

[pengin9]

anyone who thinks nuclear power is unsafe is uninformed and obviously gets all his information from the same sources that still spout man made global warming in the mist of a cooling period.

Re:Who are the denailists?

[The End Of Days]

People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow.

Climate science is a multi-billion dollar industry, and if they said "hey, everything is cool!" there would be no reason to allocate any more money to it.

Be that as it may, what exactly is so sacred about AGW theories that is beyond examination? Nothing deserves that status.