Richard Branson: I wholeheartedly support Apple CEO Tim Cook’s stance against ‘climate change deniers’

“[I am] enormously impressed with Apple CEO Tim Cook for his strong words on climate change deniers, and demanding business should have benefits for people and the planet, beyond just profit,” Richard Branson blogs for Virgin.

“Conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) – Apple shareholders – criticised Cook for pursuing sustainability programs, questioned the impact of combating climate change on the bottom line, and demanded return on investment on all environmental initiatives,” Branson writes. “Tim took a crucial stand: he told shareholders who oppose Apple’s commitment to sustainability to ‘get out of the stock.'”

“He also commented on how doing business sustainably can actually improve the bottom line. This is something we strongly believe in at The B Team, which is working hard to encourage better ways of doing business for the wellbeing of people and the planet,” Branson writes. “We wholeheartedly support him.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: For the sake of accuracy, what Cook actually said was reported by The Loop‘s Jim Dalrymple last week:

No, I wouldn’t be willing to say that because we do things for other reasons than profit motives. We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. I don’t… when I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view. It’s not how I look at it. My simple point was if you did only look at it in that way for the Maiden data center, the same decisions would have been made and so there are cases where you can see these two spheres connecting but I’m not going to say that that’s all I’m going to do by any means. I don’t look at it that way. Just to be very straightforward with you, if that’s a hard line for you, if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock just to be plain and simple… Thank you. I think it’s so important to remember that the Apple brand stands for something and you can’t take each piece of it and say, “This has a 20% ROI and this has a 15, and you shouldn’t have given this $100 million to education,” and all this kind of stuff. That’s not the way we look at it. It’s not who we are as people.

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

Related articles:
Why Tim Cook doesn’t care about ‘the bloody ROI’ – March 7, 2014
If Tim Cook does not care about the ‘bloody ROI’, does he care about the bloody stock price? – March 4, 2014
Apple’s Tim Cook and his dilemma over sustainability and climate change – March 3, 2014
Tim Cook gets angry over shareholder proposal for environmental spending transparency, says those who disagree should get out of Apple stock – March 1, 2014


  1. Another post-Jobs idiot in support of Cook’s leftist political agenda to redefine marriage, ram global warming down on throats after one of the coldest winters ever, and alienate and offend existing and prospective shareholders in the process! What more proof do u need to oust Cook? He’s an embarrassment top to bottom!

      1. Can you really imagine of having the inventor of the internet sitting there on the board at Apple repeated saying to himself and anyone who can hear him say over and over again, this “Arctic Blast” is part of the “Global Warming”.

        Please tell us again, why is Al Gore on the Apple Board? I am not clear about what he brings to the discussion about Apple’s IT and Apple’s manufacturing of products. His degree is in what? His skills are in what? How did he get on the board?

        1. My opinion is, that Jobs allowed him in as a buffer against government interference, knowing that there was no way that Gore could sway him to the current “global warming” irrationality…as Jobs is dead, Al Gore is now able influence and manipulate Cook. In the interim,  innovation goes fallow.

        2. “Former Vice President Al Gore, at a recent Senate Democratic fundraiser in the San Francisco home of billionaire Tom Steyer, urged Democrats to make global warming a central midterm election issue, according to The Washington Post. Mr. Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, expects to use $50 million of Steyer’s money and $50 million raised from donors to support candidates fighting global warming. That money will be withheld from Democrats who duck the fight or even oppose it – though it will not be spent against them.”

          1. bribe |brīb|
            verb [ with obj. ]
            persuade (someone) to act in one’s favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement: an undercover agent bribed the judge into giving a lenient sentence | you weren’t willing to be good to your sister without being bribed with a lollipop | he has no money to bribe with.

    1. Apparently, you don’t live on this planet. This past January was one of the warmest on the record. About the only part of the world where it was cold was the American northeast.

      I am truly amazed at the skill of some people to make up their own truth when the actual facts don’t support their own opinions…

      1. Yeah, “warmest on the record” using the climate team’s “adjusted” numbers.

        “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
        -Dr. Phil Jones, disgraced head of the CRU at the University of East Anglia

        1. Data is available everywhere. You have no clue what you’re talking about. The data in question was from a few Chinese weather stations, and the problem was that the study was attributing rise in temperatures to global warming, rather than to the growth in cities in those particular examples. Critical review of the study concluded that it was a fairly isolated example of improper analysis.

          This has been thoroughly researched and explained by both the climatologists, as well as climate change deniers.

          So, yes; January 2014 was indeed one of the warmest on record. Data is freely available from a myriad of independent sources (and I’m sure there are people who believe that ALL of these sources are conspiring together to fake the data for the sake of global warming agenda…).

          1. Bullcrap. Jones asked others to delete emails. He conspired with others to prevent the release of data under FOIA. He purposely withheld data to avoid scrutiny. He is not a scientist; he is a cult leader. And you are one of the Kool-Aid drinkers.

            1. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) is an American law. His research was done in the UK.

              Yes, he deleted e-mails and asked others to do so. As I said, this was because of the study that was improperly done. In an ocean of other climate work that has been widely critically reviewed by others.

              You are clearly the one who belongs to a cult, because you ignore other INDEPENDENT review of a MASSIVE body of INDEPENDENT work done on this particular topic.

              The challenges that have been raised by the skeptics have been consistently been defeated. What is annoying is that all this information is out there, freely available, but no, the skeptics (a.k.a. deniers) refuse to seek out this information (or even acknowledge its existence) and continue to repeat the big oil / big industry PR.

              I have no further desire to argue with the fanatical Kool-Aid drinkers who swallow the big oil / big business hook, line and sinker.

            2. What kind of “my-way-or-the-highway” idiot are you, predrag?
              “Denier” is a term deliberately used by climate change enthusiasts to link “skeptics” to holocaust deniers. That should be a crime.
              Your “MASSIVE body of INDEPENDENT work” is nothing but a cartel of lazy slobs on the government dole (read:grants) making sure their work supports what their politicians have already said before any science was done. All made up so’s to get another grant.
              If you can’t see the corruption here, YOU are the one who needs an education.

            3. “Denier” is used to accurately define those who, either because they are duped by, or knowingly in cahoots with, oil industry lobbying groups. Those groups have the intention to fight to keep policies that will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions (perhaps billions) of people. Why? So they can rake in more money in the meantime.
              If you don’t see how evil that is, I hope you wake up before it is too late. If you are here on MDN, the odds are you (or maybe your kids or grandchildren) aren’t a big enough plutocrat to be able to pay for private armies to pillage food and protect you from the rabble. Almost everyone will suffer for the benefit of the über-elite.
              I find it disturbing how many people have bought into the insane and illogical fantasy that almost every scientist not directly paid for by the oil industry is in some grand conspiracy to lie about climate change.

            4. It’s ironic to use a snake-handler reference to describe people who ascribe to the scientific process. Especially so when your own position is reality-doesn’t-match-what-I-want-to-believe ignorance.
              You are preaching a grand conspiracy of scientists that flies in the face of evidence, logic, facts, and reality.

          2. Good to your commenting again. I usually learn something when I read your posts. Unfortunately, all the good commentators seem to have gone elsewhere. I don’t blame them.

            MDN seems to have attracted a radical, right wing, tea party following. I’ve been reading MDN for many years but I’m seriously considering dumping this app. There are so many commenters saying anything they want. In and of itself, that’s not a problem but you can’t simply deny facts or just make up your own.

            Btw, if there is such a grand conspiracy to deceive the world, why are so few people making money off the so-called fake science? Last time I checked, the oil companies are doing quite well and I don’t see any solar or wind company taking money out of Exxon’s pocket.

            Don’t be afraid of the facts. I promise they will Not kill you.

            1. “Btw, if there is such a grand conspiracy to deceive the world, why are so few people making money off the so-called fake science?”

              Precisely, only a few people do make money off the pseudo-science of “global warming.” And, you are one of them either.

            2. Thank you for proving my point by not even attempting to address it. There is a reason for that. You can’t!

              Nobody is making money or even attempting to make money off the so-called “fake” science. There is a simple reason why nobody can make money off of it: there is so much data freely available nobody will pay for it. Don’t you love how the free market works?

      2. And, apparently, neither do you. For the past 20 years (almost), there has been NO appreciable rise in average WORLD temperatures. Go ahead and cherry pick your random month, site, severe weather stat or what have you . . . but global warming on the whole (climate change???, right) is not happening. This is just another wealth-transfer/power grab hokum, and we all know it.**

        ** One caveman shouting to another as they run along a wall of ice in up-state New York: “The glaciers are melting, the glaciers are melting!”

        1. I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but that simply isn’t correct. Pick any qualified institution that tracks meteorological data and you’ll see rapid rise of temperature. Even in the past 10 years, where the rise has slowed down, the averages are still climbing.

          We can argue regarding the human effect to this, but denying that it is actually happening is like claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth.

      3. The freezes went all the way down to Jasper Texas. I assure you Jasper is nowhere near the “northeast”. Now the reason we know this a colder than normal winter is because the higher number of freezes have slid our work schedule to the right, significantly. I am tired of hearing about professors’ doctored data designed to get them NSF grants. And shame on the NSF for allowing this bad science to go on.

    2. As an actual Loooong Apple investor I support what Tim said 1000%. I invest in Apple for their commitment to what they believe in first and foremost. If Apple did not have this attitude embedded in their DNA, then they would not be consistently providing superior products. If Apple provided us with products based on observing some running average of what people/analysts want, then they would deliver “average” products. Average products would never have made Apple the biggest company in the world, period.

      Further, if companies are forced to operate entirely based on a profit motive with no social/environmental responsibility allowed, as some of these “interest” groups advocate, then we must rely entirely on government regulation and enforcement to keep companies from killing us. I do not want to place that much reliance on politicians and politics.

        1. No, from a strictly mathematical point of view 1000% is a perfectly valid number. However, it IS absurd to agree with someone more than 100% unless you are a mind reader and are also agreeing with 9 times as many thoughts as those that were spoken.

          I rather suspect, though that it may have been a typo.

    3. Right…that’s right, oh my, what a delight to encounter a truth denier. Yesterday t was over 80 in the OC – a well known, well documented hotbed of conservathink. And why would you want to deny any person the simple right to associate and codify that association for the betterment of a community…suddenly discrimination works? And it’s okay for taxpayers to pick up the tab when minimally regulated fracking destroys aquifers? And lets not even bring up that little matter of coal ash in West Virginia, I mean Virginia, I mean North Carolina…oh yes, you can trust business to always do the right thing…Bhopal, BP, Fukushima. Oh yeah, sanctify that bottom line! That works

    4. Do you understand the term *GLOBAL* Warming? As in the planet, ON AVERAGE, is warming? Just because you had a colder winter at YOUR house does not mean you can extrapolate that to the entire planet. Have you even bothered to notice the record high temperatures elsewhere on the planet while you’ve been complaining about the cold where you are?

      Anyone who looks at all the data and truly believes that the planet is not warming either does not have at least two functioning brain cells or is deluding themselves to the extreme. We can argue the points as to whether Global Warming is 0.01% man made or 99.99% man made, or somewhere in between, but no sane person, after looking at the facts, can deny that the planet is warming.

      Besides, as Cook and others have pointed out, if the ROI is just as good, or very nearly as good, why not do something that limits man’s impact? Cook is not saying that Apple is going to spend billions on ludicrous “green” implementations that don’t help Apple at all just for show. Do you even recall that Apple has a very, very long history of being on the ecology activists’ bad company list? Apple does not implement things JUST to please the eco-extremists.

      Also, look at Branson’s companies. He’s into making money as much as the next guy — and in many cases even more so. And, even his Plan B initiative with several other business leaders across the world has as one of its most fundamental tenants that be businesses being promoted by Plan B must be money makers and sustainable. Plan B is not interested in starting charities or hobbies that lose money.

      Finally, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) is not interested in Apple doing better financially or building better products. They just want a very public platform upon which they can spout their political position — nothing more. Go attempt to read their public statements since the shareholders’ meeting with an open mind. You’ll find that their position has much less to do with Apple’s ROI than it does about trying to say that any “green” implementation is just plain foolish. Apple’s ROI on “green” implementations could be triple that of any other implementation and the NCPPR would still opine negatively about it.

      1. (Washington Times) Patrick Moore, co-founder and former member of Greenpeace, has claimed that climate change is not man-made.
        Moore, a Canadian ecologist, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that environmentalists use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.
        Moore asserted that there is no evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
        Moore added that he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science, adding that climate change was not an issue when he abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

        1. He does not deny climate change. He suggests that there is not enough evidence to blame human production of CO2. However, CO2 is NOT a harmless gas, and there is documentation to prove that we have released an enormous amount into the atmosphere and the oceans.

            1. A “Fool’s Choice” means you decided there are only two bad choices, unaware that there were many other choices available including good ones. Like instead of being “rude” or “stupid” you could have been a good/considerate/thoughtful person, actually say anything helpful or interesting, but your tiny, narrow little mind didn’t even consider the possibility of being a good person, because you reduced everything in life binary either/or decisions. Think outside the box, man. It’s such a tiny, limiting, shitty little box you confined your mind to – it’s pitiful. Imagine something better for yourself! Don’t do it for anyone else – just be a better person for your own sake, you sad, tiny fool!

            1. Seriously? You’re going there? Your 4th grade education is showing. Plants help convert CO2 to oxygen. Humans have cut down most of the world’s forests in the last several hundred years, as well as output millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.. Therefore CO2 levels must be rising. CO2 dissolves in the oceans, which would account for the fact that they are becoming more acidic. CO2 has a proven greenhouse effect, so it should come as no surprise that global temperatures would rise. And as others have stated, even if man isn’t responsible, its in his best long-term interests to reduce the effects of global climate change, because the economic costs associated with coping with it later will far outweigh the cost of slowing it down.

            2. You must be either seriously under-educated, or are really trying hard to annoy people here on purpose. Whichever it is, makes you appear like a 14-year old (which I know you’re not, as there are few occasions, when the subject is clear of American political mudfest, when you provided lucid and informed comment).

              I’m pretty sure, even your like-minded conservative contributors to this forum aren’t exactly high-fiving these types of responses.

            3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 . Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
              And you are still a rude person. Did you not attend school? Did you not learn any manners? Your arguments lose their effectiveness when you resort to name calling and profanity.

            4. What “certain plants”?
              What “evidence of major damage”?
              What details any study that correlates “higher concentrations of CO2” with the nutrition of wheat?

              My arguments are effective because they are true, despite your “offense” at my profanity.

            5. About two minutes of googling provides the answer:

              Green plants make enzymes to glue CO2 gas molecules to sugar molecules in the presence of light. Scientists estimate this takes place 3 times a second. Because these enzymes also work on molecules of Oxygen, plants keep them out of the way, inside chloroplasts. When the sun comes up, plant stomata open up and photosynthesis begins. When the sun goes down, the stomata close, use of CO2 comes to a screeching halt, and all photosynthesis shuts down. The trouble arises when a plant starts generating Abscissic Acid, an important enzyme that opens and closes stomata. High levels of CO2 confuse the plant — because Abscissic Acid molecules, it turns out, look a lot like CO2 molecules. When a plant gets confused, it closes its stomata. No more CO2. No more photosynthesis. End of story.

              That is what happens when the plants get too much CO2. I didn’t know the answer, but I looked it up myself, since I’m not afraid of the correct answer. Did this answer your question?

            6. I don’t know the answer to your question, you can google it up by yourself. I don’t think anyone even argued here that plants stop converting CO2 to O2. The argument was that increasing levels of CO2 harms the photosynthesis, as well as harms the quality of crops we use for nutrition. A few minutes of googling will yield a few studies, published in scientific journals, that demonstrate the effect of increased CO2 concentration on the photosynthesis, as well as on the yield of the plant. What I saw, the studies were done on wheat, tomato, cucumeber, among other plants.

              You shouldn’t be afraid of the truth; Google (or Bing, or Yahoo) can show you the way.

            7. It does not require Google or Bing or Yahoo, this is the truth: if plants do not convert carbon dioxide to oxygen they die. Hopefully, your inane, unsubstantiated ravings about “global warming” shall, mercifully, meet the same fate.

            8. More quick googling, to answer your questions (“What “certain plants”?
              What “evidence of major damage”?
              What details any study that correlates “higher concentrations of CO2″ with the nutrition of wheat?”)

              Click to access 539.full.pdf

              (Annals of botany: “Very High CO 2 Reduces Photosynthesis, Dark Respiration and Yield in Wheat”)

              (Nature Education: “Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants”)

              Increasing CO2 from normal levels initially improves yield, but soon enough, yield drops.

              I am not a botanist; I just googled this stuff over the past ten minutes.

            9. look, Drag, instead of links to horseshit “studies” regarding CO2 and global warming on the internet: it’s spring, go out (like I have done for 40 years) and plant yourself a garden and you will realize how nature actually works regardless of the “carbon footprint” of my mammary mauve Cadillac El Dorado. The sunshine would do you good.

            10. Even my six-year-old had a better reasoned and more mature argument when she refused to accept that Santa and the Easter Bunny were fictions. Your ignorance is both baffling and more than a little sad.

      2. It should be made clear that there really is no such thing as a “climate denier.” This is a conjured insult created by “climate alarmists” in order to squelch anyone with any question concerning the politically correct thesis of global warming.

        The Five Pillars of Liberal Thought are:

        Denial of Reality
        Thought Control
        Name Calling
        Projection of Guilt

        All are in effect with regard to discussions on climate change.

        Those of us who are referred to as “climate deniers” are skeptics for many reasons. The key word there being “reason.” No one deines there are climates. No one denies that climates change. No one denies that up until about 17 years ago there was a clear trend of increasing earth temperatures.

        What is questioned is whether or not Anthropogenic Global warming is the sole or dominant cause of that warming.

        Liberals like to scream, “You are stupid, you are ignorant! It’s science you idots! SCIENCE!!!”

        Yet they will engage in no discussion of the science. Try, just try and get Al Gore to discuss the science behind his “Inconvenient Truth.” He will shut you down and have you escorted out, labeled a denier, faster than the Catholic Church might burn you at the stake for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Speaking of “COSMOS,” in last night’s episode, Tyson laid out the scientific method for people.

        Test Ideas by experiment and observation
        Build on those ideas that pass the test
        Reject the ones that fail
        Follow the evidence wherever it leads

        With current climate science, I most definitely QUESTION EVERYTHING. I question why proponents of anthropogenic global warming say that “scientists agree” when there are hordes of scientists who do not agree, and their number is growing. The last IPCC report that again claimed, “the debate is over” literally produced laughter in certain scientific quarters.

        Climate cannot be tested. Yes you can create models, but you cannot possibly create models that truly reflect all the climate variables of earth. Talk about chaos theory. No models know where every damn butterfly is beating their wings, metaphorically speaking. The climate of the earth is not a deterministic system, it is highly chaotic. The Father of Chaos Theory (yet another climate denier) in his landmark paper that founded chaos theory said that because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object (a point which the UN’s climate panel admits), accurate long-term prediction of the future evolution of the climate is not possible “by any method”. At present, climate forecasts even as little as six weeks ahead can be diametrically the opposite of what actually occurs, even if the forecasts are limited to a small region of the planet.’

        So I question the thesis, the models that support the thesis, and the data that feeds the models.

        I question why when man made activity has risen over the last 17 years, the earth’s temperature has remained relatively constant.

        Unfortunately, just because I have questions, I am called names. Typical liberals.

        Still, in an attempt to be rational and cooperative I say, let’s just forget science. Let’s assume that everything the IPCC says is true. Let’s come up with solutions that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

        What do they come back with? TAXES!!!!!!!! LMFAO… Redistribution of wealth removes CO2 from the atmosphere? Taxing big corporations and giving the money to poor countries is the favorite solution of the United Nations?

        I’m supposed to take this seriously?

I think we can do better than that. And we are. Meanwhile, climate change proponents need to give the name calling a rest and take a look outside of their rhetoric and talking points bubble. You sound like cult members again.

        Bottom line is while I like seeing Tim Cook grow a spine, I fear he is being horns waggled on the whole climate change fiasco.

        1. Thanks for the opportunity to chip in while being spared the ignominy of having to reply to
          Fine words…as usual. Generally I nearly always concur with your thinking and viewpoint. That said, notwithstanding your concerns, your view of scientific process, theories and conclusion with associated ‘modals’ seeking to define future scenarios…needs fleshing out.
          Generally, theories are built on empirical evidence and stand or fail on how well they satisfy the questions they ask, how closely they satisfy all existing known conditional evidence and criteria..contrary or otherwise. At no point will a scientist use words that amount to ‘there is incontrovertible proof’ or ‘this is the [insert hyperbole] truth’.
          They might well say ‘The theory is [seemingly] overwhelmingly supported by the evidence to date and as presented’ or ‘This theory [argument] strongly rebuts [poses a contrary model] current thinking on…’ or ‘This research answers many concerns regarding negative aspects of [insert author]’s theory on…..’
          It’s knowledge built on knowledge built on…. At no point would a scientist – with a reputation to defend, state that they know everything about anything that there is to know…it would be professional suicide.
          So really, you are asking for a definitive answer to questions that should never be asked akin to ‘Do phone radio waves scramble your brains? Answer yes or no. It’s impossible without total knowledge of the individual, their medical and social history, lifestyle habits, type of phone and output etc etc etc….ad nauseum to infinity.
          The best answer is that – if you are a certain type of person who uses a phone for x minutes every day, exhibiting particular medical conditions, then your chances of suffering significant damage are increased by [insert statistical methodology data] % points. Depending on how much you are interested, value your future life or whether you are inclined to believe the message when you get it, you may well decide to follow sensible precautions and limit your phone use…ie…you believe the evidence as presented *aka* the theory.
          We are at much the same point in the global warming argument. Except that the evidence collection is on a vast worldwide scale and such is the importance of the question, that evidence has been subject to more scrutiny than is commonly accepted for proof. Indeed, the sheer volume of naysaying denial has occasioned far stricter scrutiny and evidence collection than the opponents are able to offer. [insert mountain/molehill analogy]
          Much like the phone use question, are you really willing to gamble on the future of your children, their lifestyle, your fellow Earth inhabitants, the world’s ecosphere’s and the very planet itself?
          Disclaimer : Environmental Sciences graduate and more.

        2. It has long been known that NeoCOns accuse their opponents of that which they are guilty of. Example- if they rant on Homosexuality you will later find they are deeply closeted.

          The accusation that
          “The Five Pillars of Liberal Thought are:
          Denial of Reality
          Thought Control
          Name Calling
          Projection of Guilt”

          Fit the MO perfectly.

          There are no more paranoid, fearful projectors of FUD and disinformation than conservative pols.

      3. The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.
        So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.
        “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.
        Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
        During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
        Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
        Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
        This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute’s Pat Michaels have long argued, “climate sensitivity” (ie how the planet’s temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC’s computer models project. So much so that it should be called “climate insensitivity”, he believes.
        Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.
        There is no empirical data indicating Anthropogenic Global Warming will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest global warming, likely to be beneficial when CO2 benefits to crop production are considered.
        Doiron says: “I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them to make critical decisions about the economy and the planet’s future.”

    5. Re iMaki
      Your winter may have been cold, but did you watch any coverage of the Winter Olympics? The fact that any one point on earth has snow does not prove or disprove climate change despite what Faux and Friendz tells you in Frank Luntz approved disinformation.

      Do yourself a favor and take a look at how many, how frequent and how widespread 500, 100 and 50 year weather events are recently and the trend line.

      BTW- a question:
      If man made climate change is real and humans FUBAR the one and only earth, where do you intend for your children and grandchildren to live? Don’t react to that question, think about that. Very carefully.

    6. No one denies “climate change.” It happens twice each and every year. It’s called Summer and Winter. 😉

      (Interesting how no one calls it “global warming” these days…)

  2. Then Branson should scrap his space tourism project, by which those with obscene wealth, but a need to show what big rockets they can ride on, pollute everybody else’s atmosphere just to boost their own egos.

    1. Well, this space tourism project uses significantly smaller engines than any other space programme out there, and as such has much lower carbon footprint than the Saturn rockets of the 60’s and 70’s, Energiya of 60 through 2000s, Space Shuttle boosters, or any current commercial satellite booster rockets. In fact, the amount of fuel it burns isn’t much greater than your average B-747 on trans-oceanic flight across the Pacific.

      There are plenty of other similar projects out there that have more serious impact on the environment.

      The point here is, we are all hypocrites to a certain extent in our lives. The moment you choose to sit in your car to drive somewhere (instead of taking the bus, or subway), you show the same sort of hypocrisy of which you accuse Branson. So, the post is rather pointless.

      1. I agree with you, Predrag. The deniers are desperate (see botvinnik) to shut everyone up about climate change and call anyone who even discusses the subject a hypocrite.

  3. MDN, I thought the point of us registering with our email addressees with you was so that you could pull a ID when that user is abusing the comment threads. Please see two posts from “jamestmurry”, neither of which is contextually relevant to the article or comment thread.

  4. “Artificial” climate change is FRAUD ! What happened to Global Warming ?? Oh yeah they realized its been cooling since late 90’s so they had to re-brand it.
    The “Greenhouse effect” has been proven to be a scientific impossibility. It actually defies the laws of physics and has been proven so by renown physicists.
    Real climate change is the fundamental nature of weather and has been happening since the dawn of time. Its nothing new and its normal.
    We are in fact living in an ice age, more specifically Earth is in a warming period between the extremes of ice ages. That’s a fact and any measured weather patterns are NORMAL ! For example, a mere 20,000 years ago (a blink in our history) what is now city of Ottawa was buried under 150 of ice ! Visit a museum of natural history and learn facts, instead of believing the lies and BS governments have been feeding us.
    Its disgusting the billions of dollars spent by economies of the world on fictitious lies to combat a fallacy.

    1. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

      It is truly sad to see people with such conviction when the main source for their information is a political party, rather than a neutral scientific body…

      1. Actually he probably is more correct then you will ever be,,, Climate has been changing since the dawn of time.. The issue always has been whether human activity is influencing it, if you go back through history, you’ll find warmer times when there weren’t enough people on the planet to make a difference, To assume that we are the cause is silly. The solutions are going to make life untolerable for millions.. Which is even more foolish..

        1. Yep that’s right. Earth doesn’t have a stable weather pattern based over the eons. The Sahara was once NOT a desert. Continental drift, volcanic activity, shifting of N/S polar magnetic field, melting and freezing/creation of glaciers and all manner of change happens continuously. The Earth is not in a static weather & geographic zone. And someday it will cease to exist entirely when our sun goes super-nova. Whether or not man has speeded along the changes for now is not really known. Man may be most responsible for the rise in acidity in our oceans from emissions.

          1. First, our Sun is not massive enough to ever go supernova. It will expand to a Red Giant and swallow the earth in the process.

            And yes, the climate changes over time. But I happen to like living on a planet that is good for Humans, so a world that is too hot for people to survive in is not my idea of a good time. The whole point of studying the climate is to be able to predict what will likely happen in the future, which you seem to have a problem with.

            1. By “super nova” I meant the final event before the sun (and Earth) snuffs out. Of course the Earth will have been completely uninhabitable for a long time before that happens anyway. You’re right in that our sun is too small to go super-nova

              Guys like you seem to have a problem with whatever people say or re-interpret it into some other different idea. The Earth could give a damn just how “comfortable” Montex or humans are or would like it.

              I am not against studying the climate but question just how much man is actually contributing to the process (and subsequent “fix” if necessary) and how much is just normal geologic and weather phenomenon, which you also seem to have a problem with.

            2. Talk about redefining the issue! Nobody is saying we are killing the earth. The earth will be just fine no matter what we do to it, after all it still supports life after many extinction events in it’s 5 billion year history. I just don’t think we should be the cause of killing 90% life on earth, including ourselves.

        2. I know it’s probably foolish to argue with a denialist, but maybe, just maybe, you’ll listen to a simple factual correction.

          If you consider all of Earth’s history, you’re correct that the climate isn’t stable – temperatures change drastically over millions of years of Earth’s existence, there’s many ice ages, it even started off as a smoldering hot rock with no atmosphere or water. Yes, over this enormous time scale, climate change is no big deal.

          But when you narrow it down to just the entirety of human civilization – which only goes back 10,000 years maximum – the climate is remarkably unchanging and stable the entire time. It does not get warmer, it does not get colder – during human civilization, the climate has been remarkably different from the past in how stable and unchanging it is.

          This last 10,000 years, where the climate has been completely stable, is the only setting human civilization is known to exist. There is NO PRECEDENCE for climate change happening at the same time as civilization. And given civilization’s complete dependence on agriculture for survival, and its tendency populate coastal areas, there’s every reason to suspect climate change would present a serious and unprecedented problem for human civilization.

    2. Yes the climate changes naturally. No one disputes this. Historically, with a few exceptions, it happened at a slow enough rate such that life could easily adapt and or move.
      What we have now is a situation where life (US) in fact, are not easily re-located. Particularly as humans like to build near warm coastal areas. When we lived in tents and grass huts, this was not a particular problem. Now that we live in concrete huts, however, we do have a problem. The earth is warming at a much faster rate than we can handle. Glaciers are disappearing at an amazing rate. It is happening. The arctic sea ice is disappearing. The Greenland Ice Sheet is disappearing. These are facts.

        1. From the perspective of the Left, if you are going to make a criticism then it is your responsibility to offer a solution with that criticism. The same cannot be said for the other side. On the right, simply attacking your opponent is all they are capable of doing. There will be no solutions to global warming offered by the right-wing, only ad hominem attacks on those who acknowledge it.

          1. From the perspective of rational human beings everywhere, there is no solution because there is no problem. Global warming is a hoax to control and reduce industrialization and production and its eventual goal: a global “carbon” tax.

            1. In addition to the scientists at NOAA: British Petroleum, Shell Oil, the government of China, Starbucks, the World Bank, Nike, Coke, the national academy of sciences of several countries, and the US military all accept Global Warming. Who are you?

        2. Well, for a nation who refuses to admit that there are any other people in the world, as is evidenced even by your television weather maps,
          I expect this will come naturally to you as you descend into 3rd world status.

    3. No, you simpleton, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

      The reason, typical USAnian backwards tool, is that when it was routinely called “global warming”, morons like yourself jumped up and down like hyperactive school children everytime it snowed because you don’t understand what “global” means. It isn’t “tri-county warming”. It isn’t “USA warming”. It’s global warming, and a direct result of global warming is extreme weather as a direct result of changes to the environment. So in fact, bozo, they started using the term “climate change” for people like you, because they wanted to try to make you understand what is actually going on. But steeps as you are in your ignorance, you can’t even recognize when someone is trying to do you a favor.

  5. Dear global warming deniers. Did you know that 1 gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds? Interesting. Did you know that when gasoline is combusted in an engine, it is combined with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce two main waste products: water and carbon dioxide. Fun stuff.

    Oxygen from the air is pulled out to combine with the carbon in the gasoline. Neat. But here’s the crucial bit: 6.3 pounds of gasoline becomes 20 pounds of carbon dioxide.

    Typically, I burn 40 gallons of gasoline in my car each month, which is 252 pounds of gas. Therefore, I am responsible for dumping 800 pounds of CO2 into the air each month.

    Now multiply that number by the millions of other people doing the exact same thing, and THEN tell me that there is no possible way this could have a negative impact on the climate.

    1. You’re right, but trying to clean it up will have a negative impact on someone’s bottom line. That’s the only reason anyone wouldn’t be in favor of a cleaner planet.

    2. I assume, because of your obvious commitment to your environmental ideals, that you do not drive or ride in an automobile, take any airplanes to anywhere, refuse to purchase any foodstuffs created from using said tools and have no heating or cooling in your thatched hut. Otherwise, one might surmise that you are a hypocrite.

      1. Unlike you Mr. “there is no problem” botvinnik, I am fully aware of my carbon footprint and talking about it does not make me a hypocrite. Quite the opposite, actually. Refusing to acknowledge any negative impact is the height of hubris and ignorance. And just because you asked, I commute on a 100% electric motorcycle on dry days in Seattle. So yeah, I put CO2 into the air just like you do, but I actually am aware of it, acknowledge it and am doing something about it.

        How typical of a right-winger to demand anyone who dares talk about global warming to shut up. And no, I don’t have to live in a cave to be allowed to talk about it. You will not oppress me or anyone else who knows the facts.

        1. I’m sure it gives you some kind of personal satisfaction to allege that I am a “right winger.” However, I would receive an even greater satisfaction placing my size 12 carbon print boot up your ass. I would, of course, compensate you for your broken glasses.

  6. It is irksome and off-putting in the extreme when those riding the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon label those who ask serious questions about data gathering, climate models and scientific rigor as “deniers”. It is idiocy and hypocrisy to do so and belies their pretense to objectivity. Those who hawk the specter of anthropogenic global warming have singularly failed to provide scientific “proof” that human activity is the primary driver of said warming. The IPCC’s latest report backs off a numbers of previously claimed “certainties” and is more cautious in its approach.

    I care about our environment very much and want to do all I can to make our world a better place. But to do that I need to know the truth, not somebody’s version of the truth that fits a certain ideological narrative. I will accept whatever that truth turns out to be and act accordingly. My eyes are open. But I also got a pretty good BS sniffer when it comes to math and statistics.

    Given what we know and don’t know today I find it impossible to justify spending hundreds of billions on a government mandated radical restructuring of industry and society based upon a hypothesis supported by climate models that have consistently demonstrated that they cannot predict our weather accurately. Not when that money could be better spent putting food on people’s plates and providing clean drinking water.

    So to the AGW crowd, give me some concrete proof! Or don’t you dare call me a denier, cause that label might better fit you.

    And thanks to MDN for providing Tim Cook’s actual words. He did not say what Branson implied.

    My apologies for the long post. But this really gets my steam up.

    1. There is complete consensus in the scientific community that climate change is real and caused by human beings. Just because right-wing media tells you to doubt what the scientists say does not mean you have successfully invalidated the research. Fox news only fools the gullible.

      1. Uh, no, there is NOT complete consensus in the Scientific community that climate change is real and caused by human beings.

        Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis—Forbes Magazine, February 13, 2013

        It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

        Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

        The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

        1. Dishonesty in the extreme.
          The “survey” cited by Swordmaker was not representative of the scientific community. It was a survey of engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, Canada, where most of them are employees of an oil company.
          So, either Swordmaker let his bias blind him to the facts, or he is deliberately trying to lie to the MDN audience. That is typical behavior for climate change deniers. The group is a mix of the ignorant and malevolent.

      2. In addition, over 31,000 people with scientific degrees have sign the following petition:

        “The text of the petition reads, in its entirety:[4][8]
        “ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
        There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

        So much for your “consensus.”

        1. Swordmaker is becoming more slick. Interesting that his previous post included a link, and following that link led to information that reveals his comment to be a lie. In this comment, he neglected to include a link. Is that supposed to make it easier for him to hide his dishonesty?
          I’ll take a stab at it anyway:
          He says “31,000 people with scientific degrees” signed a petition. That is pretty empty, authority-wise. It is sad to imagine “31,00 people with scientific degrees” believing it is responsible for them to state an opinion based in ignorance, but not surprising. There are a lot of “people with scientific degrees” out there, and probably millions who will happily espouse positions/opinions that are not based on science.
          There is also the obvious problem of selection-bias with some random online petition.
          I’m assuming if Swordmaker had actually provided a citation we would discover other things that completely undermine his argument, but even taking his words at face value, they don’t amount to anything relevant.

    2. Silly question but…where is YOUR proof ie 100% undiluted empirical data and peer revued PROOF that the Global Warming is NOT affected by man’s industry?
      I’ll save you the trouble…there isn’t any. What you will find is reactionary politically inspired hogwash, so called University of You’ve_never_heard_of_it scientists with more knowledge of Erich Von Däniken than credible scientific methodology, bizzaro ‘it came to me in a dream’ 180 deg about turn conversions and logic free spleen-and-vitriol misinformation merchants with no moral compass.

      1. Dear Gotcha, Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative? Those with any grounding in science or logic would know that that is not possible.

        With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake I find it hard to prescribe to the precautionary principle. The burden of proof must be with the AGW camp.

        Try again with a cogent response next time. Thanks for playing. 😉

    3. My problem with these “models” is not that they cannot predict weather accurately, but rather that not a single one of the can retroactively “model”—I.e. Predict—what the climate DID DO using the data the users of these model confidently claim will “predict” what the climate is going to do in the future. . . Not a single one of them. None of these models showed the little ice age of the 1300-1850 or the warm period that allowed grapes to be grown in England in the 600-1200s. . . and the one that created the infamous “hockey stick” which was based on tree rings data missed both of them. . . and is currently not showing the cooling period. These are not speculative periods, but well known events.

      The data from the warmists also ignores the facts that their warming trends over the past century come from weather stations that are in suspect location that are surrounded by heat sources. . . Big cities, airports, highways, etc. while rural weather stations data that do not suffer from such heat engine/sink build up and change show either no temperature rise or a slight decline in the same period, putting the data in question. Protocols for siting of official thermometers have been horribly ignored. Better than 80% have been found to be placed near heat sources and/or heat sinks in urban areas or have allowed such structures to encroach on the weather station over the years with little thought to the effect on the data being collected. Some, in the name of esthetics had landscaping and pavement placed completely around the station, including large masses of concrete! Others where once grass surrounded them, are now on the edges of parking lots! Still more that were on the roofs of buildings have had large air-conditioning heat exchangers built right next to them to cool the building. . . All of these are included in the rosters of weather stations reporting increased temperatures. . . compared to the temperatures they used to report!

  7. “There is complete consensus in the scientific community…” Really??! Come on. Are you just trying to provoke by saying something that is obviously not true, cause that would make you a … Wait for it … TROLL.

    I’m very sorry but I make a point of never debating crazy people.

    Have a nice day and please seek help.

    1. The really cool thing about science is that it is true wether you choose to believe it or not. And call me all the names you can think of (your pal botvinnik is especially talented at name-calling) and it won’t make any difference.

            1. Hardly. In Safari, try Command-F. Then type a search term into the search field and it will display the number of instances that word occurs on a page. I’m surprised you didn’t know that, perhaps you’re too preoccupied with Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  8. What is fascinating to me is to see the type of ( entirely expected ) responses from a mainly American readership and then compare this thread with comparable threads published elsewhere in the world. Climate change deniers are very vocal and numerous in the US, but are encountered very much less in the rest of the world, where people make intelligent judgements based on science and observations, rather than accepting the word of politicians and TV shows with an agenda.

    Some of the people in the US pointed to the exceptionally cold winter as proof that global warming doesn’t exist, yet in Europe it was an exceptionally warm winter, with many parts of Europe that would normally expect snow not experiencing any whatsoever and in some areas not even any icy roads either. The UK experienced extremely high rainfall, with flooding over large areas and unprecedentedly severe storms in the seas around Ireland and the UK. Australia experienced an unusually warm summer in 2013/14. Just before that, 2013 was a notable year for Australia with many temperature and rainfall events setting new records.

    These were all unusual and they all happened in the last twelve months. If you look at records around the world for the hottest, coldest, wettest, driest, windiest weather conditions, most of the extreme recorded weather phenomena have happened in the last ten years or so and in many cases, so has the second highest. That is precisely why it’s referred to as climate change. Generally speaking if one area receives exceptional rainfall, another will get less and if one continent has unusually hot weather, another will be cooler, but the important point is that established weather patterns are changing and that change has happened recently.

    Our global weather system over the last 10-20 years is no longer functioning in the way that is has done since records began and the obvious explanation is that something is prompting that change.

    Climate change is not a left/right political issue. It’s something that the entire world population needs to take seriously and to play it’s part in limiting. We all stand to lose if our global climate continues becoming increasingly unstable.

        1. Oh botvinnik, it’s nice to see that you share your ad hominem attacks for people besides me. In fact, why not call everyone who does not agree with you the most vile names you can think of? It proves you are right, doesn’t it?

    1. As a “yank” let me explain it. Years of unfettered corporate influence on our government has brought this once great land to a grinding halt.

      The corporations feed opposite talking points (accompanied by campaign “donations”) to Republican and Democrat politicos. They ratchet up the rhetoric and hyperbole, then cable news and talk radio gets ahold of it and adds a super-charger. Now we cannot talk to one another in this land without name calling or having a pre-formed, (READ BIASED) opinion of others based on some label spoon fed by the above mentioned media outlets.

      Unfortunately, one side of those partisan groups prefers “faith-based-intitatives” to science and regulation so we have this large population that no longer believes scientists, and fears that it is all a ruse to enact some draconian tax upon their already-burdened-selves.

      Factor in the fact that the same partisan group has waged a decades-long war on education funding and this is where we land. Half the country denies valid scientific data, believes in creationism and would rather bail out banks and wage unjust war than fund schools. Funding for schools=Bad, Teachers=commies, Science=Tax? Guns=A-OK, stand your ground.

      Seriously, America is a screwed up place these days, we have lost sight of who we were and have become a nation of greedy, bickering, sociopaths.

      I agree with you 100% on global climate change, I understand the scientific method and take it very seriously, this comment thread, well it just makes me sad for my kids and their future.

      1. @Dude,

        sadly I agree. You’re absolutely correct.

        I used to frequently visit the US, have worked alongside a number of American companies and have many American friends, but I despair of the way that so many otherwise intelligent people refuse to see what’s staring them in the face.

        On any given topic, you will always find scientists who disagree with one another, but it’s rare to find 97% of scientists agreeing about something as they do about Global Warming, yet a huge number of Americans refuse to listen to those scientists and seem incapable of logical thought.

        The US has experienced unprecedented extremes of heat, cold, rain and wind in recent months. It’s not something that is only affecting people in far flung places that you’ve never heard of and couldn’t point to on a map, it’s already happening on your own doorstep. One hopes that there might come a time when the majority of Americans will be smart enough to work out why it didn’t used to be like that just a generation ago.

        When I suggested this link to MDN, I obviously expected to see a large number of vacuous comments, but I was genuinely shocked at the level of sheer idiocy that so many people have displayed in this thread.

        1. As you can see earlier in the thread, one commenter has been busily replying to many, many posts (more than 60 at last count). This same person has threatened me, called me names and accused me of “lying” because I’m basing my opinion on the information presented by the scientific consensus of the world’s climatologists.

          I brush it off as just the usual ridiculousness that it is, but there is something else going on her. I think what we are seeing when corporations and the ultra-wealthy are allowed to make unlimited monetary campaign contributions is the new fascism. Simply put, the rich don’t give a damn about the rest of the people in the world as long as they can reap all the world’s wealth to themselves. And so they set the lower classes to fight each other while they are busy fixing the system to their benefit. This is what is destroying America, not the PhD. Climatologist discussing the increase level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Reader Feedback

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