Apple’s Tim Cook and his dilemma over sustainability and climate change

“Apple’s normally soporific annual shareholder meeting contained a glimmer of interest this year when a shareholder from a conservative think tank asked the company to stop worrying about sustainability, green issues, and climate change and concentrate instead on the bottom line of profitability,” Tim Worstall writes for PandoDaily.

“Tim Cook essentially told his interrogator from the National Center for Public Policy Research to go boil his head, which is nice of him and provides good copy. But this fails to elucidate the dilemma that Cook actually faces,” Worstall writes. “He is indeed focusing on the bottom line by taking the actions that he does on these very issues. It’s just that he can’t actually stand up and say that.”

“Yes, sure, I sign up to Milton Friedman’s idea that a company should be viewed as having one purpose and one purpose only, which is to enrich its shareholders. With a couple of obvious caveats, legality for example, playing their part,” Worstall writes. “However, and here’s the dilemma, it’s not actually obvious that Apple’s activities in green and climate change matters do not in fact add to the bottom line… Apple does indulge peoples’ green fantasies when it doesn’t cost them much if any money and entirely ignores such greenwashing when it might indeed affect that profit line. And that, really, is Cook’s dilemma. He knows this, he’s a sharp enough cookie, but he cannot actually stand up and say so. The golden glow that the company gets when Greenpeace lauds its commitment to renewables is worth money in the bank”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Tom Ferguson” for the heads up.]

Related article:
Tim Cook gets angry over shareholder proposal for environmental spending transparency, says those who disagree should get out of Apple stock – March 1, 2014

176 Comments

  1. If I have to pay extra for green products I will and I will seek those companies out, so Apple being a green company is most definitely money in the bank.

    1. This seems fitting given Cook’s recent public comments:
      Tim Cook: CEIO (Chief Executive & Ideological Officer)
      Steve Jobs: CEO/iCEO (Chief Executive Officer)

      Regardless of your position on Global Warming/Climate Change, any stock holder has to question Cook’s wisdom in using AAPL’s prominent position to soapbox his own. Why in the name of product innovation and stewardship of shareholder’s savings (sometimes lifelong), does a CEO of a profit oriented company, deem it ok to figuratively give the finger to approx 50% of the citizenry (those not ascribing to Global Warming)? Whether or not the percentage is 50%, there’s certainly a fair portion that will be much less energized to be a part of a company where the CEO castigates them and who’s focus is not zeroed in on product innovation and stewardship of shareholder’s savings. Call capitalism evil if you like, but Apple is positioned to make money, NOT to act like a think-tank.

        1. Oh and NOTHING dictates that capitalism, as originally intended, has anything to do with evil human behavior. Nothing.

          It’s specific human beings and their personal behavior that MAKES their capitalist behavior ‘evil’. Get to the REAL source of the problem. It’s not ‘capitalism’. Clue given.

        2. It’s apparent to me, Derek, you missed my point.
          Of course SJ was idealogical–he was an idea machine…but the overwhelming PUBLIC presence of his ideology was based in product, importance of design, cultural application(s) and things related. Never in my couple of decades following Apple, did I ever think SJ was diluting his CEO position with matters that were politically polarizing (read think-tank). Did he hold views that could have been polarizing–sure. Did he implement things at Apple that were based on political views–yes. Did he soapbox them like TC has in the last couple of weeks–no & never. Btw, I read the book & thanks for the lesson on capitalism.

          1. I think we can all agree Steve Jobs was a liberal in his political views. At the same time, if you read his statement late in life about how pubic school unions were destroying education in America you know he was not a knee jerk liberal. He could see through liberal orthodoxy, like “pubic teachers unions are always right all the time and must always be funded at the highest levels so we can maximize the opportunity to put liberal ideas into children’s heads and get all the union PAC money. Steve understood these unions were destructive and he argued against them. At the same time he was probably the most successful capitalist in America arguably since Henry Ford. He used the free market system to the hilt to build Apple into an incredibly big and successful company. And congrats to him for doing this. When the Cupertino City Council asked him for a bunch of free wifi and other money to be handed over for approving the new HQ, he said Apple already paid big taxes and was a huge employer and he would not just have over more money to government. Very wise on his part. I truly admire him, I respect his political views though we disagree, and I feel bad for other industries that the government has decided to regulate way beyond the mostly still free market that exists in high tech. The same free market does not exist in health care, energy, banking, pharmaceuticals, and other areas where government bureaucrats now essentially run the businesses.

          2. Tim Cook ‘soap boxed’ exactly what?

            The obvious ‘soap box’ blether-fest emanated strictly from the neo-conservative ‘think tank’ mouthpiece. All Cook did was state Apples ETERNAL point of view about how to responsibly perform business, as opposed to the stink-tank’s ideology of defecating on humanity and the Earth for the sake of that temporal symbol of security called ‘the buck’.

            Your point of view is lost in the mud of bad thinking IMHO.

            As for capitalism: If you listen to the bombast of the biznizz bozos running the show these days, you’re NOT going to learn about capitalism. You’re going to learn about desperation parasitism. If only everyone would read about actual capitalism we’d clear out a massive amount of noise on the Internet.

            1. Yes. What the Federal Government promotes is crony capitalism, where businesspeople like Warren Buffet and Zuckerberg, and Eric Schwartz line up to give money so they can get favorable treatment in return. And big agricultural interests who have to pay to play due to the long standing regulation of farming.

              Capitalism is what Steve Jobs did. Also what Phil Robertson did. And the founder of Chick-Fil-A. And the many companies pioneering fracking. Rush Limbaugh has done capitalism, and so did Ben and Jerry. And The Stones and The Dead. All free people offering services to consumers who have the free choice to buy or not. No compulsion by the government. That is key. And no subsidies. There are still many capitalists around but they are being slowly smothered and killed in the cradle by the oppressive federal government. Steve Jobs could not have started Apple under Barack Obama. And achieved the rapid success he did.

      1. No, as a stock holder I do not have to question Cook’s wisdom, I se it in his actions and deeds. I am pleased.

        You realize that behind this Faux-outrage lies a political ploy right? Do you really believe this “think-tank” was concerned that Apple is wasting money, or do they have a political axe to grind?

        Furthermore, Apple is company with more science acumen than some think-tank, or any of you comments. They really shouldn’t care that half of America is ignorant and backwards as fuck. They should make the best products, they should strive to be sustainable, because RESOURCES ARE FINATE ON THIS ROCK, got it skeptic?

        It really doesn’t matter what it costs to keep Mercury and arsenic out of my drinking water, or out of the food chain. Responsible stewardship of the planet and it’s resources is the only SOUND and RATIONAL way to operate IMO. You can debate climate change and carbon credits until you are blue in the face. Bottom line is that using sustainable methods and taking care to not pollute should not be based on shareholder politics nor greed.

        1. Truth… Where in my post was it insinuated that being a good steward of the earth’s resources was a non-issue? Where in the post was I advocating a lack of care per drinking water? Where in my post do I enable you to assume that Apple can’t be a good steward of the environment and simultaneously a good steward of shareholder’s $$? I think it’s possible and I advocate both, but Cook’s way/means in this area may seem to uphold one, but at the expense of the other.

          1. Hey, don’t mess with TRUTH. He fought in George Bush’s war for America so we could export capitalism and freedom around the world. He is a decorated veteran so he is allowed to do whatever he wants, no matter how obnoxious, how ignorant and how wrong he is. He is here fighting the Obama collectivism and lawlessness at MacDailyNews. Salute TRUTH.

            1. Kunt, you are the poster Troll for Obnoxious, Ignorant and Wrong.

              I am not fighting for Obama anything, but I do despise partisan-bots like you. Glad I could give you something meaningful to do today, must not be any kids on your lawn to chase today…

          2. My response was really more about how it how this argument iappears to be framed from the right. No Facts proving Apple is somehow shorting shareholders, just conjecture. No middle ground, just polarizing yap, Global warming is a farce, Al Gore’s wrong, all regulation is evil, Apple is sacrificing profits yadyadayada.

            I did not see Cook as grandstanding, he wasn’t abusing his soapbox IMO. He was annoyed that this guy decided to turn a shareholder meeting into a political statement and snapped off at him. It was unlike him, and he may have been having a bad day, he is human. Clearly the guy who asked the question got the Apple numb, suddenly it is being widely discussed. Why was no one talking about this a week ago? A month ago? It is not like Apple suddenly did a 180 and snuck up on people with their green efforts. They started under Steve, do you really think he had no road-map, no shared vision with the executive team? Doesn’t seem very Steve or Apple like if you ask me.

      1. Pollution, raping and pillaging the lands, expending finite resources and increasing shareholder value made America great?

        Some strange reality you live in….

        1. “Truth” prefers the economic model of Cuba to the US. And he hates the US and all it represents. But, being a total hypocrite, he won’t swim to Cuba to get to that Utopia. He just keeps his lazy worthless ass here living off the goodness created by people who lived the freedom that America provided. Which is its best legacy to the world. Truth is just full of BS.

          1. Wrong Kunt, I am a decorated combat veteran of the USMC. When and where did you serve, Mr-Patriot? Have you even been out of the US? I don’t believe in jingoism, plutocracy or partisanship. I also happen to be a gainfully employed, married father of three.

            I don’t hate the poor, I donate time and money to help those who need it most. I see that our government is owned by corporations and bankers, I see the peoples needs slipping further and further down the list. I see the spoiling of the lands that has occurred during my lifetime. These are important to me. Not Faith, not who marries who, not your interpretation of morality. If that makes me a commie, color me red.

            I watch the likes of you grab hold of those “Wedge-Issues” you are fed and gobble up the hook, line and sinker. All the while knowing, there is no critical thinking from you, no logic, all emotion, all spoon fed like a little sheep. Enjoy the flock…

            1. OK, so you despise authoritarian governments like Obama is creating here. Thank you for your service. Now, quit making stupid comments and we will be fine.

      1. I love the new green windmill farms that are killing bald eagles faster than DDT ever did. These windmills got a killing exemption that allows them to legally return the bald eagle to endangered status so that the windmills can promote all the green virtues, like dead birds.

        1. Meanwhile, giant propeller wind to energy generators are only clumsy version 1.0 technology. For years, there have been superior ‘windmills’ that don’t chop birds into meat and are useless as neo-conservative anti-green propaganda.

          Here’s are a couple, of several, superior wind generator designs:


          These generators don’t drive people insane with low frequency hum. And they’re not ugly eye sores that ruin your view from Nantucket. So take those propaganda points off the list as well. √√√

          1. Thanks Derek, we do not always agree, but you are right.

            I will never understand these partisans being against responsible stewardship of the planet. Many of Earth’s resources ARE IN FACT FINITE. It makes sense not to shit in the well. It makes sense to save some for future generations. It makes sense to re-use recyclable materials, it makes sense to reduce dependency on coal and gas with cleaner alternatives WHEN POSSIBLE. Why is that a bad thing? Because some broker says so?

            Apple’s position is responsible and like everything they do, innovative. Are we really surprised that a wall-street neo-luddite doesn’t get it? What is new there?

            1. Truth and Derek support the people who got the exemptions so the big bird choppers can keep grinding bald eagles into pink slime so they can feel superior about their ecological sensitivity. These hypocrites use carbon based fuels all day long while telling all their cohorts how these things are imperiling life on earth as we know it. They are typical limousine liberals who preach a bunch of stuff they refuse to incorporate into their own lives. All talk. All stupid talk.

            2. Goodness gracious, thank you for a nice reply.

              When I whittle down my personal POV, I’m all about personal responsibility for one’s choices.

              Being a biznizz that defecates on everything while desperately clawing for another monetary unit is, in my perspective, what babies do. Give them their bottle now now now or they won’t stop waling at you. Here comes the dump and pee in their pants, YOU clean it up for them. Babies.

              I prefer growing up and taking responsibility for my choices, foreseeing messes ahead of time (long term thinking, long term gain) and cleaning up after myself to the best of my ability. It’s work. I like work as long as it’s beneficial to myself and the world that creates and sustains me.

              I find Apple, certainly Tim Cook, is similarly interested in being grown up about their choices and responsibilities.

    1. Tim is being attacked for his Hypocrisy, and pissing off a lot of people fast. Google and Android went from ZERO to having MUCH MORE market share than Apple overnight. It does not take much to screw with your base. Seeing how Drudge has this article linked to his 25 million daily readers, that’s a chunk of people for COOK to piss off. Most comments are people turning their back to Apple. NOBODY needs APPLE. COOK needs to wise up. Thats all we need, a twinkle-toes CEO on the rag.

      1. android?
        Google practically makes no money off android or android services like search or apps. It makes two times more money off iOS services than android.
        If you minus the 12.5 billion for motorola as an Android expense (Google bought it for the patents to stop Sanjay Jha from suing other android phone makers) now sold for a fraction it will take many years for Google to RECOVER from the LOSS.

        Apple makes more profit off iOS than ALL the android phone makers put together. Get that? Apple makes more off iPhone, iPad and apps than all the samsung, HTC, Motorola, Lenovo, LG , etc etc phones tablets put together. Shoot you can even add all the Windows, Blackberries and Symbians and all the hundreds of million of dumb phones and apple still makes more. Apple makes 50-70% of all the phone profits in the world BEFORE you even count iPad money …

        Android is great if you want to lose money like Motorola, HTC by basically giving phones away.
        If you are running a CHARITY android is sort of OK (you’re also spreading a plague of malware) but as a business not so much…

        1. it always baffles me that..

          people who praise android vs iPhone as a corporate issue are like people who think:

          selling 10 widgets for 100 profit
          is worse than selling 100 widgets for 10 profit.

          1. wow, I wrote such long detailed posts and still you don’t get it…

            you say “Google makes their money from adverts once you buy the phone.”
            My stats already counted the ADVERTS…
            “Google practically makes no money off android or android services like search or apps. It makes two times more money off iOS services than android.” (search and services are ADS and other stuff… )

            IN 2012 in the Oracle trial Google said they made about 100 m plus a year from ALL android profits including search , services (i.e ADS etc). Compare to the tens of Billions apple makes off iOS. And how long will it take for Google to pay off the billions lost from Motorola?

            Google PAYS Apple to have Google search default on iOS.

            And ONE MORE TIME: about ” market share” …
            do you want to sell 100 widgets for $10 profit (market share)
            or 10 widgets for $100?

            DUDE IF YOU HAD A BUSINESS YOU WANT MARKET SHARE RATHER THAN MONEY? Do you want 10 or 100 dollars?
            and I’ve already hinted that Android only gets market share by basically making no money or losing … (motorola loses money quarter after quarter).

            the reason apple makes so much and android makes so little is not because apple products are overpriced but that android makers:

            — make so many different models because android is so bad they aren’t sure what will stick with customers . Like samsung makes many phone models thus pushing production costs, packaging, shipping costs up!
            — they are a lot of android product returns.
            — to sell bad android products they spend gigantic amounts on advertising: samsung spends 4 times apple on advertising (see ads during Oscars etc). recently Samsung shareholders with bad quarter screamed at management to stop spending so much but Samsung knows without ads android phones are dead. The first droid phone on Verizon had a launch campaign costing 100 m. etc.
            Android phone makers also spend on store promos, BOGO deals, high commissions to retailers etc to push android phones and they still have bargain bins of no sale phones which lose money….
            — android phone makers like HTC have to pay apple , Microsoft royalties for patents as Android is basically a stolen product. Msft is said to make more money off android than Google!!
            ETC.

    2. From anther article:

      The free-market group analyzed the first round of energy usage data released by city officials Friday and found that large, privately-owned buildings that received the green energy certification Leadership in Energy Design (LEED) actually use more energy than buildings that didn’t receive this green stamp of approval.

      1. You “conveniently” didn’t provide a link, therefore your posting is immediately suspect.

        The “research” was done by a “free-market” group, which strongly implies conservative/Republican group, therefore the article is irrelevant.

        It’s like pointing to a “research” article le sponsored by Samsung and saying “see? This article says Android is better than iOS, therefore it MUST be true.”

        1. You spotted that damn free market promoter. That type of bozo is for you and me being able to pick which phone or computer we want. And the company that makes the computer being able to decide on their own, without help from government bureaucrats, how to engineer and supply the computer. These are some sick twisted people. Not like you, who understand it is up to the state to decide how much the iPhone should cost, and who should get them (first Party officials), and how much the workers should be paid and where they should live. These decisions should not be left to the little people, who don’t know as much as I do, and Barack, and Nancy and Harry, and Vladimir, and Fidel. We know what is best and you will all get what we decide to give you. And for our assistance in this way, we will just take your savings, your old health care plan, your home and we will definitely move that “free market” nutcase uncle of yours to a “re-education camp” where he can learn the value of sharing.

        2. Didn’t take much to find it. Is the analysis accurate or un-biased. I don’t know. As a Registered Architect, what I do know about LEEDS, is it causes massive over-design with paybacks measure in the hundreds of years hundreds of years. But you do get a nice plaque and some serious subsidies. Oh yeah, what’s a few extra trillions when were only $17T in debt with another $149T in unfunded liabilities? http://o.dailycaller.com/all/2014-03-02-report-dcs-green-approved-buildings-using-more-energy

  2. Most people do not realize that poverty has the single largest impact on average life expectancy. Because of this, when prices of goods and services increase for whatever reason, the number of people in poverty increases.

    1. Do you have anything to back up that assertion? The alternative take is to say that when goods and services carry higher prices there is more revenue available to hire people and to pay them better wages. Low prices only benefit people if they have jobs. Low prices would seem to depress hiring and wages making life more difficult for people.

      1. Really? Are you that daft? Let’s see, I’ve worked in the slums of Jamaica, the jungles of coastal Ecuador, and the blistering heat of Djibouti, Saudi, Egypt and Qatar. I’ve also lived for an extended time in Western and Eastern Europe. I’ve seen first hand this relationship. For you, I strongly recommend an extensive read of the CIA World Fact Book or search Wikipedia using the country name and the word ‘demographics.’ Gosh, how I do hate suffering fools!

  3. Cook is essentially a left wing kook espousing typical left wing rhetoric touching on issues that are unproven or not based on the available scientific evidence. While a sustainable green policy is a worthwhile goal to pursue, it should not be pursued to the exclusion of all else, least of all marginalising the importance of profits.

    There is no scientific evidence that global warming is caused by man-made activities which overwhelm the Earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles, cycles that have oscillated between ice age and warming over the entire Earth’s history. Remember the last ice age was 10,000 years ago when the glaciers retreated to where the poles are situated today. New York was under 500 ft (150 m) of ice in the Pleistocene Age.

    Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet. It seems he invented more than a few stories about himself and global warming which is based on fake data.

    1. People like you will still be talking about return on shareholder investment when the oceans are dead and half the planet is uninhabitable. Human beings are pillaging our own home for the sake of short term profit. Cook is clever enough to be skating to where the puck will be on this one. It won’t be long before everyone has no choice but to notice.

        1. “I just wanna save the Atlantic Ocean, really don’t give a rat’s ass about the rest of ‘em” — man, what planet are you from? You do know all oceans are interconnected? Maybe you think the Atlantic Ocean is a lake that is totally separate from the Pacific ocean?

          “issues that are unproven or not based on the available scientific evidence” — only on Fox News, for the rest of the world where IQs are above 70, the case is closed that global warming is severely damaging the habitat of humans (and most animals). If we keep up what we’re doing, we’ll be in the same situation as ‘Wall-E’ and have to leave Earth. The only things that’ll thrive are jelly fish and cockroaches.

          1. There’s zero case to be made that man-made climate change has already “severely damaged the ecology of the Earth.” It certainly is true that by cutting down the rainforests and other development activities that humans have directly, and in some cases drastically negatively effected ecologies, but simply saying that stuff like burning fossil fuels has had severely damaging effects is false. it could be the case that it may cause such damage in the future if trends continue, but that’s an open debate.

            We have numerous other hazards to look forward to such as the giant caldera in Yellowstone which could blow up in the next few years or next few thousand years (no one knows the exact timing). Such an event will instantly render any discussion about carbon credits and CO2 in the atmosphere instantly irrelevant.

            Then let’s not forget other factors such as sun activity, and future giant celestial collisions (we don’t have most of the potential catastrophic meteor trajectories mapped or tracked.)

            1. What’s the matter Kunt, the city catch you dumping your oil down the storm drain again? Got your panties all in a bunch because your liberty is being infringed?

            2. If I didn’t know you were a decorated veteran killing machine, I would think you were a rude potty mouth. But as it is, I salute your service defending American exceptionalism, our free market capitalistic system, our oil fields, our nuclear power plants, our freedom for all citizens to own their own guns, the San Francisco bath houses where grown men . . . (we will leave that alone), our rap music industry which is a source of inspiration to our nations youth, Al Gore for being such an amazing example of selflessness and self denial in the name of conservation, and making America safe for Barack Obama to show that a man with no accomplishments but a rock hard hatred for America can still rise to the top so he can piss on the whole country. Thank you TRUTH>

      1. Those nasty profits again. Funny how when national economies improve (and make profits) due to free market policies, people start caring about the environment. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes do have an excellent record of poisoning the environment, while killing their own citizens.

        1. Never is a long time. I’ve been to China many times. I agree the pollution is horrible. However, it is dawning on them that the long term costs of pollution to the economy outweigh the short term gains. It is not clear if they can actually fight this effectively in time.

        2. Please provide a verifiable source for the claim that 25% of LA smog is from China. I live in Southern California and I have never heard such an assertion. I am 100% sure that you just pulled that out of your ass.

    2. Maybe, but Apple is still allowed to put their money where they want. I don’t see them losing too much in these ‘investments’ and they may also be looking for collateral technology (like wind energy when you speak? I kid….)

      That said, this shouldn’t be turned into a ‘left/right’ issue since Apple isn’t being run like a hippy commune.
      (I don’t buy the ‘leftist’ argument, even if many of the Big Suits are liberal)

      1. The money belongs to the shareholders who own the company. Tim Cook has an obligation to those shareholders. That is why the question came up. Is Tim Cook looking to keep the company profitable or is he looking to spend their money on his green pet projects?

        1. No, SOME of the money belongs to the investors, and ALL of the investors are not threatened by this move.

          Now, of course any investor has a right to question some moves, and they have a right to sell (where does that money go then….to Apple? Hmmm)

          And Apple has a right to explain what they are going to do and refuse demands they don’t agree with. They have always done this, although Mr. Cook might have been more professional in his refusal (if reports are correct).

        2. Of course its the investors money, but:

          a) They voted on this and 97% voted the restriction to only consider profits and ROI down.

          b) They don’t have to do things Tim Cook’s way, but if they want to do things differently they need to find a different CEO who doesn’t care about these issues.

          In any case, sustainable energy is not a “pet project”. One way or another we need more energy and clearly sustainable energy is better because it isn’t a continuous instead of one time source.

          1. Profits are good and profits are necessary. Yet it is not always clear what is the best path towards long term profitability. Apple could do all sorts of silly things to make a ton of cash for six months or so then the name and reputation would crash. They sell t-shirts, pens, hats, etc. with the Apple logo. They give up iOS and use Android then they could fire most of the engineers. You get the idea. Within a year the reputation would be shot and profits would crash.

            This is the story of pollution. Dumping waste in the air and water is cheaper and extra revenue goes to profits. Eventually people get sick, the landscape is ruined, the economy suffers and profits go down.

        3. Sounds like the shareholder value myth is raising its ugly head again. However, Mr. Cook does not have a fiduciary duty to maximizing shareholder wealth.

        4. Do you see nothing morally reprehensible about a system that values profit before EVERYTHING ELSE? Shouldn’t we put people and the planet in there too?

          Essentially what you are saying: job #1 is to protect and maximize profits. ALL ELSE BE DAMNED, must think of the shareholders? Apple, please pollute more, we shareholders want more profits for all the hard work we do for Apple. GTFOH

          Besides, who says profits are coming at the expense of green manufacturing? Why does Apple get lauded for new material use, new manufacturing processes, new supply chain ideas, but when they NATURALLY pursue being at the leading edge of sustainable stewardship they are attacked?

          Utter shite, political nonsense is what we have here, nothing more.

    3. I’ll listen to the majority of scientists who believe that the increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is contributing to climate change; especially since the bulk of the changes occurred after the industrial age had been well-rooted.

      As far as that silly meme that Al Gore said he invented the Internet, he never said such a thing. Just take a minute and check it out on Snopes .com

      1. Rick, wise up! Trees, oceanic plants and plants need carbon dioxide to survive!
        They take carbon out of the air in various ways that is useful to plants!

      2. The Republican leaders in Congress are quoted as saying that Gore was among the leaders in the work Congress did to help build and support the Internet. (Of course, that was before Gore was running for President.)

      3. Rick, please look up “milanovitch cycles” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. These cycles are as close to ‘proven’ scientific fact as anything geophysicist study, demonstrated with evidence from ice cores, glacial varves, pollen analysis, dendro and other dating methods. Since these ‘cycles’ are historic, we should be confident they should reflect predictably in to the future. Per Wikipedia over “the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle.” Meaning, the earth has 100,000 years of ice age punctuated by a brief, 5-10 thousand year ‘inter-glacial temperate period’ i.e. the Holocene. Guess what, the mile thick ice cap over Chicago (check out ‘glacial rebound’) melted about 10,000 years ago. Are we about to enter another ice age? While I can’t predict the future, the historic evidence is very strong and is why the climatologist in the 1970’s believed we were entering another ice age (plus other evidence like growing deserts). Oh, by the way – I have Master of Science in Space Studies. Guess that makes me one of the 3% of the skeptical ‘scientists.’

        By the way, anyone who accepts the argument that ‘important people all agree …’ do NOT understand either the scientific method (be skeptical and re-test everything) or Aristotle’s fallacious arguments of ‘calls to a higher authority’ and ‘calls to a non-authority.’ Basically, you can’t really test climate models since the climate works on geological time scales (tough to measure in the here and now). Also, when someone says ‘97%’ of any group agrees, then I’m pretty sure someone is trying to pull a fast one!

        1. Next glacial period
          See also: Milankovitch cycles
          Since orbital variations are predictable,[2] computer models that relate orbital variations to climate can predict future climate possibilities. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects (global warming) are likely to exert a larger influence over the short term; and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood. Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[3]

          Am I glad to read that!!

          1. Since I can’t predict the future, it could be. However, the pattern over the last million years is roughly 100,000 years of ice age and 5-10K of temperate. Since this pattern seems pretty standard, I’d bet we have a pretty cold future starting pretty soon. Also, as I learned in my Masters of Science in Space Studies, one has yet developed a widely accepted theory as to why these cycles exist. Milanovitch’s theory using celestial permutations only goes so far. The theories I’ve read about include: Plant ‘X’ with a hugely eccentric orbit causing a gravitational pull on the earth, long-term solar cycles we’re unaware of (what do you think a 1% decrease is solar radiation would do to our climate?), temperature cycles in our own earth’s core, changes in galactic relationships, or …. I’d think you’d get the drift. Bottom line we’re blithely trying to predict the future in geological time frames with effective climate measures going back a mere fifty years. Really?

        2. This is what I’m talking about with Yellowstone. The concern about CO2 emissions is overplayed, but a singular eruption event at Yellowstone, which is essentially inevitable and likely to occur in the next few tens of thousands of years, and possibly any time in the next few years, is likely to be globally cataclysmic.

          Note what happened about 70k years ago at about 24:30 into the video. The Toba eruption nearly wiped out the human race at that time. The last mega eruption in Yellowstone was about 640k thousand years, and it’s approximately on a 600k year cycle.

    4. Oh, fuck off. It’s a miracle that the USA continues to produce people like Jobs and Gates from the muck that is the mouth breathing right wing anti-intellectual fucktards that clog it’s buffet lines.

      1. I guarantee that His Shadow is using carbon right now.
        The Hypocrisy is gross. Nice try to label right wing the way you do, The right wing and Tea Party has your back even though you are quick to goose-step to the socialist drum. So you voted for Obama.. Nice job he’s doing, PUTIN is eating him for lunch.. Laughing at our community organizer. When you realize that Tim Cooks job is to turn a profit, via capitalism, you’ll learn where your freedom came from. Tim is a West coast liberal hypocrite liberal. Spending his money.
        I bet you don’t have any stock, WE own the company.

    5. Apple’s green energy policies have nothing to do with whether Tim Cook or Al Gore believe in global warming or not.

      It is a plain and simple fact that burning natural gas, coal, oil, or building nuclear power plants pollutes our atmosphere, water, etc. If Apple investing in green energy, like solar panels on its data center, reduces the need to buy fossil fuel energies, then that’s better for the environment. It also may be better for Apple’s bottom line if the solar panels over time significantly reduce the amount of energy Apple must buy.

      Corporations cannot operate in a vacuum of the world, only concerned with bottom-line profits and lining shareholder pockets. Besides potential energy/money savings, Apple’s energy policies help keep our planet cleaner and provide Apple with valuable good PR.

      Additional profits to shareholders will not provide much valuable PR, or at least only sustainable good PR until the next quarterly result.

      1. Nuclear does not “pollute the atmosphere”, and it does not pollute the water either unless we dump it into local streams and lakes. The radioactive material comes from the earth itself which is essentially a boiling fission reactor at its core, so it’s silly to think that we are somehow adding radiation to the system when its already there. People freak out about “radiation” when they bathe in it daily when they go out into the sunlight. Solar panels may be a great idea if they can be produced using less energy than they can output, and if they can be produced with limited toxic environmental impact.

        Ideally we’ll figure out how to create some form of sustainable fusion energy at relatively cold temperatures or harness the power of hydrogen which is plentiful in the oceans.

        1. Nuclear reactors produce nuclear waste, so radioactive that it must be stored for decades under mountains. While we are taking measures to avoid environmental contamination, Chernobyl, Fukijama, and other nuclear waste spills show how easily nuclear waste can contaminate and effect the environment.

          1. Compact fluorescent light bulbs, now mandated by the government, contain significant amounts of mercury, a deadly toxic chemical. This mercury is now going into American landfills and is polluting the environment, all at the direct command of the federal government, at the behest of environmentalists, who decided the incandescent light bulb no longer met their lofty standards. So they dictated nobody could make them anymore. Now, we are stuck with polluting light bulbs. This is what comes from the brilliance of government and environmentalists colluding to make our life decisions instead of letting free people make free decisions. I will take the latter over the former any day of the week. Of course I don’t revere Che or Fidel either, as do half the posters here.

          2. Not decades, THOUSANDS of years. That is the crux of the arguments over where to put it, what to do with it. Currently we do not have containers that will even last that long. That is why they THINK (READ: HOPE) putting it in salt domes will sufficiently entomb it.

            Plutonium has a half-life of 376,000 years. Exposure to radioactive isotopes can permanently damage your DNA, it is why exposure often leads to cancers.

    6. Maybe Global Warming isn’t happening, but that doesn’t justify pollution. We still have to breathe and drink even if the world isn’t warming. We have to be responsible stewards of the environment not for the environment’s, but for our own. I would prefer if manufacturers did not dump caustic, rancid, gooey or otherwise unclean crap in my town. I’m sure the Chinese and most everyone else feel the same.

    7. In addition to Mr. Cook, other “left wing kook[s]” that subscribe to global warming include: the scientists at NOAA, British Petroleum, Pacific Gas & Electric, and the U.S. Military.

  4. Overwhelming scientists support global warming. I don’t understand why right-wing Republicans declare war on science. I guess to get votes from the flat-earthers. Apple will be impacted by climate disasters like anyone else.

      1. A study examined peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), only 1 explicitly rejected human-driven global warming. It is telling that the debate by the deniers is being done on op-ed pages, advertisements, and entertainment shows, rather than in scientific journals where they have to back up their opinions.

        1. Who did the study, and who funded It?
          Seriously, had you said 400 articles or 250 or 1200 authors rejected AGW, I would have thought ‘well, there is some scientific debate and that is good’ but you didn’t, and I know for a fact there is much more scientific discussion that what you quoted, although much less political openness.

          Can you link to that? I’d be interested in seeing what you read.

          (and quit being childish about where you think ‘deniers’ get their info, you obviously wouldn’t look even if you knew what they read…Mark {my words})

        2. And as soon as one study comes out with a new computer model, someone else points out that it is missing important data like wind or something which renders the computer model inaccurate at best.

          The real problem is that no one can ever tell if global warming/cooling is man-caused or not. The fact is that we have considerable impact on our environment simply by being alive. So do cows, dogs, grass, etc.

          The difference for people is we build things and we can think and argue about the things we build and do.

          The fact is we do pollute our planet with our modern society, and only a fool would claim that such pollution doesn’t impact us in a multitude of ways. Whether our pollution causes cancer, difficulty breathing, global warming, or just looks damn bad, we need to get it under control.

          Nothing bad will happen from us reducing our pollution of our planet. Nothing good will happen if we ignore it and/or increase our pollution levels.

          1. You mean nothing bad will happen as long as undeveloped nations don’t dare try to enter the 21st century?

            That cheap energy to heat and cool are changed to less dependable sources?

            Again, the argument is being oversimplified for the sake of political gain.

            1. Not what I said. But when undeveloped nations try to modernize using decades old technology and have factories, power plants, etc. pouring pollution into the air and water, then that greatly affects the world. Particularly when those countries have populations like China, India, Brazil, etc.

            2. Environmentalists think it is fine for oil to be produced in the Middle East and damn the consequences there. They don’t want it produced here. But they do want to drive their BMWs, Mercedes and also have access to all the products made from oil derivatives. Likewise, Obama does not like coal power, but promotes electric cars that get their charge from coal powered plants. And he and the environmentalists don’t like the cleanest new energy that actually is cost effective – natural gas. They oppose tracking and pipelines that carry oil and natural gas and they do all they can to block any drilling on public lands and offshore. Obama loves to fly in planes and take expensive vacations and use the public fleet of planes to carry hundred of sycophants on all his vacations and world tours, burning up vast quantities of carbon based fuel, so he can go and lecture the world about the evils of oil, that he is probably the worlds largest consumer of.

              Put simply, environmentalist Democrats are hypocritical in their personal lives and also stupid in that their solutions are almost always not cost effective and have worse environmental effects than the free market solutions they criticize.

            3. Yeah. Like when the Obama US Government run Veterans Hospitals are worse than third world hospitals then the Federal Government has earned the right to tell all the other good safe hospitals and health insurance companies how they should operate, so the entire US health system can become really good, like the system that serves our US Veterans. The VA hospitals. Excellence in tertiary care.

          1. You mischaracterize the paper you link to. None of the papers were published in peer reviewed journals, they were merely inserted into database collections.
            As near as I can tell, you are involved in purposeful disinformation. How much does Heartland pay you?

    1. What you are saying is pointless in America. Half of the population are under magic spell of oil industry and their followers. The rest of the world is very much aware, but in America, they simply love their Exxon-Mobile and the official truth it professes…

      1. Are siting there using electricity to pontificate? Or do squirrels on treadmills create your power. You realize of course you condemn ‘big energy’ while reaping the benefits they grant you. Does the word “hypocrite” mean anything to you?

        1. Exactly,, He is in a Heated/ Cooled house, using all kinds of carbon, but in denial. IT’s SUCH the liberal meme.. as long as you agree with AL GORE, and smear the right wing, you are forgiven for all of your hypocrisy. Every libtard on this page with a mutual fund most likely OWNS Exxon Mobile.

          The idea that the right wing is anti science is so tiresome and childish. IT must be SO easy to be a libtard,, Basically you just green light any social activity, and tax everything. while paying for everything with other peoples money. Sickening.

          Stay the F out of my wallet.

      2. Ridiculous. Go talk to China about polluting the atmosphere and increasing carbon footprints. When 1.2 billion people get half as efficient as we are in the U.S., then you can look at the U.S. to do more.

        We all need to reduce waste and pollution, but this demonization of the U.S. as the only global warming combatant needs to end. How about Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, China, etc. etc. who produce far more pollution yet do virtually nothing to clean up their air?

    2. The “scientists” who support global warming are indeed overwhelmed. They can’t keep their stories straight. First, it’s global warming; then it’s climate change. The IPCC predictions were all wrong. They “hide the decline.” They cherry pick raw data. They “adjust” raw data (and, somehow, it always goes upward). They refuse to release their data and methods. They threaten to destroy data before allowing “deniers” to get a copy of it. They tell each other to destroy emails.

      These guys aren’t scientists. They are cult leaders.

  5. The function of the “Global Warming Hoax” is the initiation of a global “carbon tax.” Of course, those countries that are the most industrialized will be penalized the most.

    Worstall shrewd use of “indulge people’s green fantasies” defines the hoax with with aplomb.

    1. It always amuses me how global warming deniers turn their head away from the obvious. All one has to do is follow the money. Who pays for which science. The vast majority of scientific research in the world, financed by myriad sources, demonstrates the consequences of global warming. Then there is a small group of scientists who claim that the global warming science is inconclusive at best. However, when we look at the money that supports those scientists, we discover that virtually ALL of them are generously funded by the oil industry of the world. As we all know, oil lobby is by far the most powerful (financially, therefore politically) lobby on the planet.

      I am not sure I am ready to believe a small group of scientists who are funded by the most powerful machinery on the planet, whose primary interest is to perpetuate its moneymaking machine until there is no more money to be made. No matter how convincing those scientists may sound to me (and I”m not a scientist).

        1. Gullible is insisting that a handful of paid propagandists should be allowed to demand that settled questions be reduced to 50/50 propositions because they don’t like the conclusions of modern research. Climate change deniers are no better than creationists. Skilled at fomenting outrage and muddying the waters but ultimately on the wrong side of history.

          1. Your only hope to escape The Green Fantasy is to come to terms with your anger over Dad not getting you that unicorn for your fifth birthday. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor to find reality.

          2. Settled questions?!? Wow, talk about swallowing it hook, line and sinker!

            Global warming causes, effects, and predictions change about as often as politicians criticize their opponents. By earlier predictions, both coasts of the U.S. should be underwater right now, but yet they still touch air. We should be having about 2-30 cat 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic, but last year had only a handful.

            All the doom and gloom is based on computer models and conclusions from vast amounts of manufactured data. That data is only as good as the data input AND the thoroughness of the computer model. What is clear is that the computer models are sorely lacking in thoroughness.

            I’m not blaming the scientists for that, because it is a nigh impossible task to develop a computer model to predict the unpredictable, to include data and changes that people don’t know about or understand, and to calculate events that have almost an infinite number of variables.

            Are these studies valuable? Of course. They show worst-case scenarios. But they also fail to take into account that if one factor changes, other factors adjust and modify to account for it. Our planet is remarkable at maintaining itself despite calamities, and that is something these computer models can never account for.

      1. Really? ALL opposition to AGW is funded by big oil? Show me your sources.

        WIth that, I don’t even mind that big oil fights back.. I LOVE big oil, I hope they continue to do the great job they do. Hating big oil is about the dumbest thing you could do since the energy has completely created modern society and lifted more people out of poverty than anything.

        Predrag is a socialist.

    2. Suuuuuuurrre it is, botvijerk. Suuuuuurrrre it is. All these scientists all over the world plotting together so there can be a global carbon tax. Yeh, that’s how they want to spend their scientific careers.

  6. How did that green energy investment work out for Spain?
    Oh yeah. It was a colossal failure.
    Apple stockholders should be worried. This green energy horseshit has been sapping our economy and enriching nobody except Barack Obama’s campaign bundlers.
    And, in terms of being “green,” they are often a failure there, too. Did you see the latest news where DC’s green-approved buildings actually use more energy than uncertified buildings?

    1. Apple has been investing in useful green energy — solar and geothermal energy sources for data centers (which not only reduce the need to purchase electricity, but provide backup power sources). Apple isn’t buying wind farms on Easter Island.

  7. Global Warming or Climate Change has a lot of problems. The fact all science models are based on faulty data from the University of East Anglia (they lied about their data and no one was fired for it) is one thing that Climate Change supporters don’t want to admit to. That being said, I think it’s fine that Apple wants to make products that do less damage to the environment. Tim Cook never once said Apple was doing it because he supported Climate Change. All that is is a “buzz word”. He has said that they were doing it because it was the right thing to do. I’m OK with that.

    1. You’re exhibiting massive ignorance and/or deliberately spreading FUD. Eight international committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations. East Anglia’s data was not faulty. Do some independent and non-partisan research.

  8. I find the following ludicrous…

    All the right-wing climate change deniers, and, while we’re at it, the evolution deniers leads lives absolutely soaked in the products of advanced science… and they believe in that science…

    clothing materials, paint, advanced televisions, computers that fit in a pocket, plastics that range in property from memory foam to as hard as metal, ceramics that can stand the heat of reentry, satellites, incredibly subtle medical procedures, and on and on.

    But SOMEHOW they can pick out just two aspects of science and say, “For these two particular fields, we don’t believe. There’s a worldwide conspiracy of scientists aiming to interfere with the astronomical profits of our beloved ultra-rich” and for evolution deniers, “Deny the work of our Lord.”

    1. Nice textbook democrat/libtard smear of the right. In my LIFE I’ve never met any right winger or tea party member that are deniers of science. its just the Left Wing smear and it doesn’t work, That is what is ludicrous,
      Who did you hear that from, Bill Mahar?

      A TINY TINY fraction of religious freaks, ON BOTH the LEFT AND RIGHT may take the bible word for word, everyone else uses the bible, church etc as a tradition at best. DO you think all of the Baptist Blacks in the south who voted for OBUMMER are RIght wing? oh and anti science too?

      Libtards like this John Smith are cowards. They’ll try to destroy anyone of the Christian faith,

      Try to attack a JEW for believing in their bible, and They’ll OWN YOU.. Are JEWS anti science? I think they wrote both books. But the cowards go after Christianity as Anti Science.
      So So tiresome. Bill Mahar is proud of you. big accomplishment.

    2. Most Christians are not considered ‘rich’, but the ones that are fund an incredible amount of charity.

      BTW, everything you listed is made with petroleum by-products (they learnt me real good in our 1 room school shack/outhouse/temple/smoker)

    3. You need to be very clear about evolution — there are two very different theories of evolution:

      1. As Darwin stated, life evolves over time, with desirable characteristics (size, coloring, strength, speed, etc.) prevailing and lesser characteristics disappearing. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who denies this occurs.

      2. Creationism v. Primordial Soup argument. Many people have difficultly looking at our modern society and believing that all life on this planet is attributed to some chance encounter of amino acids in a pool of goo billions of years ago. Some choose to believe the Bible’s version, that God created Man and Earth in 6 days. Others believe there was some diving hand/guidance in creating or placing life on Earth. But you cannot lump this argument into the claim that those who believe some diving/superior being assistance to create life on Earth is the same as Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

Leave a Reply to silverhawk1 Cancel reply

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