Tim Cook: Apple to build $850 million solar farm; Apple Watch will surprise everyone

“Apple will partner with First Solar to build an $850 million solar energy farm in California, CEO Tim Cook said on Tuesday,” Jacob Pramuk reports for CNBC.

“First Solar shares spiked on the news and closed the day about 5 percent higher, while Apple ended about 2 percent higher,” Pramuk reports. “Cook touched on the solar project and a wide range of company developments — including Apple Pay, the Apple Watch and the company’s partnership with IBM — at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference.”

“The solar farm in Monterey County would provide enough energy to power nearly 60,000 homes, Cook said. The California farm would become Apple’s fourth, as the company already has two in North Carolina and one in Nevada,” Pramuk reports. “Addressing the wearable Apple Watch, which has drawn considerable skepticism, Cook said that ‘everyone will be surprised about the breadth of what it will do.’ He compared it to the iPod’s influence on the music industry.”

Read more in the full article here.

Eric Slivka reports for MacRumors that Cook said of the solar farm initiative, “We at Apple know climate change is real. The time for talk is past and the time for action is now. All of our data centers are now on renewable energy. Just today, we’re announcing our most ambitious project ever. We’re partnering with First Solar to build a new 1300 acre solar farm in Monterey, California. Enough renewable energy for all of our new Apple Campus 2, every other office we have in California, all 52 Apple retail stores in California, and our data center in Newark, California. $850 million investment. It’s the right thing to do both socially and financially.”

Read more in the full article here.

90 Comments

  1. Tim Cook needs to question the data. Declaring that “the time for talk is past” is more than slightly fascistic – especially when serious questions remain regarding the integrity of the data and the motivations behind promulgating doctored data.

    We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

    The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

    When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

    Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

    This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

    Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

    Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

    One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

    Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

    Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time

    Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 07 Feb 2015

    The time for talk is not past, Timmy.

      1. What a ridiculous, anti-environmental waste of 1300 acres of land! That’s a LOT of land that could be conserved or put to better use, all for the sake of wasteful solar energy that provides no benefit. Construction and transportation of solar panels from China emits a LOT of CO2, then it has to be done all over again in just a few years since their lifespan isn’t very long. That’s in addition to all of the minerals that have to be mined to build them and the chemicals released into the environment while in fabrication.

        1. You may have some very good points. I wonder what is being done to address those concerns? You would think Apple would be investing into that directly rather than just using off-the-shelf panels regardless of their impact. One must wonder.

          1. First Solar (Apple’s partner in this initiative) has manufacturing facilities in Perrysburg, Ohio and Kulim, Malaysia. Maybe the Ohio plant will get a chunk of this business.

          2. Because Apple knows to FOCUS on what they do well. First Solar knows SOLAR, so when Apple buys $850 Million of solar panels from them, they ARE investing in cutting edge solar research and development. First Solar will use that money to do that.

            1. First Solar, like the rest, is dependent on government subsidies – tariffs – to profit on what would otherwise be an uncompetitive venture. Take away the mandates, quotas and above-market prices paid to feed the grid and the entire industry collapses.

        2. “Construction and transportation of solar panels from China emits a LOT of CO2, then it has to be done all over again in just a few years since their lifespan isn’t very long.”

          What you are forgetting, Karen, is that the NEXT time they would be produced using power from SOLAR panels…..emitting no CO2 whatsoever.

          As far as transportation is concerned, rail and ship is real efficient the last I heard.

          And both of those forms of transport are way past the time they were converted to electric anyway. Imagine an electric train engine with 1, 2, 3 or more carries full of rechargeable batteries. same with ship. Build em big build em electric.

        3. Wrong on so many levels. Solar panels can last 20 years or longer. They may not be constructed in China, and certainly the CO2 of transporting solar panels from China is far less than the CO2 of transporting trainloads of coal from Kentucky — not to mention BURNING all that coal to generate electricity (lots of California electricity is still made by burning coal).

          To suggest solar panels are anti-environmental is like saying vaccinations are anti-medical. It’s just stupidity.

          1. That’s why China uses all that solar power of theirs to make those panels instead of dirty coal…oh, wait, my bad – China is the biggest polluter in the world. Not to mention the biggest baby (oops, slipped again) – er, fetus thrashers in the world.

            You commies, keeping the Planet beautiful, one (or one hundred million, whatever) human death at a time.

            1. China, like most of the rest of the world, focuses on the expedient path to near term profits rather than a more sensible and sustainable long term plan.

              Coal and oil are the low-cost solutions only if you discount the decades of investment and the costs of the resulting environmental damage, pollution, and health effects.

        4. Funny how environmentalists raise holy hell if someone wants to take some land for a road, to build a factory, or to drill for gas, but 1300 acres for a declared “green” purpose is AOK. That’s a lot of farm land, a big nature reserve, or enough land for 5-10,000 homes. And if I’ve worked out the cost correctly, and without taking subsidies into account, this facility will cost over $14,000 per home served.

      1. “Painstakingly debunked?” So you say. I see no proof, just more manipulation.

        Global warming is a scam designed to take money from the world’s producers and redistribute it to the world’s poor. Leftists of the ruling class will not rest until everyone is poor except for themselves.

        Cook should know better that to declare “the time for talk is past.” He’s been hanging out with that charlatan con artist Gore for too long.

          1. Thought they changed the name to climate change. That way you can justify the wealth transfer, whether temp trends are up or down. On the other hand climate has been changing for the duration of the existence of the planet. Solar panels are losers, unless you live in a state like Hawaii, where the electricity rate is $. 35/kwh.

            1. According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

              And those numbers only get better for Solar every year, as they have been for the last 30+ years. Think Moore’s Law.

              You can ignore the “wealth transfer” directly from your pocket to the Trillion $ petroleum industry that pays for that Denier tripe that you swallow from them, but ignore the 97% of scientists who have published their data in the open market of scientific inquiry, where other scientists can rip them apart if they find errors. And the consensus there is that we are causing climate change.

        1. What exactly is wrong with distributing wealth to the poor? It’s not as if most of the poor are “lazy” poor. In other words, most are not poor by choice, but rather by circumstance. The same applies to the wealthy. MOST are not self-made wealthy people and if they are, many times it was about being in the right place at the right time.

          Warren Buffet is a wealth man, but after he earned a certain amount of money, the money made more money. It’s not like he worked for every dollar. He was just able to exploit the system to his own benefit.

            1. That’s not the point, of course. When America was at its industrial greatest — between 1940 and 1970 — the top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 90 percent! The top marginal tax rate is now 38 percent.

              The last two generations HAVE seen a massive wealth transfer, but it’s from the poor and middle-class to the ultra-wealthy.

              Face it, George — rich people have misled you into thinking the poor are the problem. We’re not.

            2. OMG, life is so unfair. I was around, dumbass, those years, and that great taxing only produced wasteful government spending and yo-yo recessions. Live life, instead of believing what your ‘alternative’ American History teacher tells you. Say, how is Matt Damon these days? I’m sure he has you over for tea at least once a week, huh…?

            3. kaplanmike, you have to remember that there were FAR more deductions and loopholes under that “70 to 90 percent” top rate, so many that very very few people paid the rate. And most of these deductions were accessible by the middle class; the “closing of the loopholes for the wealthy” may have made the wealthy pay more, but the net taxes for the middle class have also gone WAY up as a result.

              Isolated facts, like “70 to 90 percent” marginal tax rate prove nothing without context.

        2. Either you believe in science, or you don’t.

          Either you believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, the heating of the planet, that men landed on the moon, and that the WTC fell because a couple of jumbo jets flew into them… or you don’t.

          And I’ve never explained how curbing fossil fuels and pushing towards renewable energy “takes money from the world’s producers and redistribute(s) it to the world’s poor.”

          It might take some money away from coal producers and oil companies (and Arab sheiks), but it doesn’t give it to poor people. It gives it to solar panel manufacturers, windmill companies and Tesla Motors. That’s a trade-off I can live with.

          Paranoia runs deep, Mr. Claptrap. I suggest you stock up on aluminum foil.

    1. The science is settled- Solar is cheaper than fossil fuels when all subsidies are removed.

      Maybe in Faux Newz/World Nut Daily there is controversy regarding global climate change, but not among those professionally employed in Climate Science. Only among those who are funded to sew doubt in the minds of the uninformed and bolster the talking points of the willfully ignorant is there a controversy.

    2. Wow. Christopher Booker? The guy who writes screeds about how asbestos and second hand smoke are harmless and evolution is a lie? THAT Christopher Booker?

      After he explicitly STATES that his “sources” cherry picked specific data points (dozens out of a database of hundreds of thousands of data points) to fit his argument, he admits that this data mining was done by a blogger who has ZERO Climate science background.

      Why do the temperatures have to be “processed” at all? Because almost none of the records are continuous. Weather stations have moved, they’ve changed the time of day where the temperature-of-record is taken, and they’ve replaced old thermometers with more modern equipment. All of these events create discontinuities in the record of each location, and the processing is used to get things into alignment, creating a single, unified record.

      Does it work? The team behind the Berkeley Earth project performed a different analysis in which they didn’t process to create a single record and instead treated the discontinuities as breaks that defined separate temperature records. Their results were indistinguishable from the normal analysis.

    3. Stop confusing climate with weather. Long term vs. short term. The warming in global warming is about the ocean temperatures, not surface temperatures. The constant record setting weather is a clue. It does not matter if it is hot, cold, wet or dry the fact that patterns are rapidly changing is what is important.

      If you want some prof that solar works look at Florida “the sunshine state” (my home). We had a company that knew that the problem with home solar power was the upfront coast and long term it would pay for itself. They had business plan that would rent the roof space for a granted rate. The power companies, who buy all our power from out of state, complained and the State said that they could not pay the rent that way and destroyed their business plan. Last Thanksgivings our “representatives” stopped all funds for grants, research and incentives. It helps that our Governor is from Texas and wants to keep us sucking on it’ tit instead of Florida creating some of its own power. Even if global warming is not true why would solar be bad, it would put money back into our state? When local businesses realize that solar keeps money locally the politics of this country will rapidly change.

    4. One guy writes one blog post, and suddenly you’re an expert in climate change? Let’s wait for the scientific community’s response to this — if the science even warrants a response.

      AFAIK, a lot of the adjustments across the globe have to do with urbanization. That is, temperatures are adjusted DOWNWARD to account for the heat-trapping nature of concrete and steel, as opposed to grass and trees. If a weather station was built in the countryside in the 1920s, and it’s now a densely populated suburb, the temps will be higher simply because of urbanization. That’s why adjustments are made.

      If some adjustments went the other way, my guess is that there are other environmental factors in play.

      It’s easy to spin facts to fit any story, “Superior Being.” All those cheers from FOX every time they report “record-setting Antarctic ice coverage”? Turns out there’s more sea ice because of all the MELTING: the fresh melt water ices up quicker in the winter and covers more ground, but it’s a thin ice sheet. More ice acreage, but less ice total.

    5. Superior Being, Karen, you’re like the Truthers to the liberal trolls lurking MND, driving ’em crazy(ier), only with actual truth instead of that made up looney ‘Truther stuff.

      To them Man is king, some Dear Leader to tell them what to think, not how. But you get an A for effort and A+ nerve!

    6. The Earth’s climate is changing. The Earth’s climate is always changing. The question is, what is the relative contribution of human influence on that change. Carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere impacts the thermal balance.

      You can argue about the relative contribution and the likely ultimate effects of human influence on the Earth’s climate, but outright denial is ridiculous in my opinion.

    1. If we cover up much of the earth with inefficient solar cells, what is the cost to the plant and animal life underneath them?

      If we need light (and TV etc) in the evening, we have to store the solar energy. What is the cost of producing and recycling all the batteries needed on our earth?

      If the ground is covered up by solar cells, how do plants and trees collect and store carbon without photosynthesis?

      1. Give me a break, “cover up much of the Earth” Aren’t you over-exaggerating a bit? Besides, last time I checked, there are some plants and animals the can live in the shade.

        These panels sit way up off the ground, light still shines through allowing grasses and other plants to grow.

      2. What an incredible lack of knowledge of the current state of the technology and a lack of imagination on how to deploy it. Even with todays solar cells, we could supply enough power for the entire planet with an area about the size of West Virginia. but of course, virtually ALL of that space would be located in more intelligently located spots, like the tops of buildings/houses. And since solar cells are currently on a “Moore’s Law” – like path of increased efficiency/cost, that space requirement for displaced “plant and animal life underneath them” decreases every day.

      3. Then we are in agreement that black asphalt and roofs — neither of which generate a damn thing except urban heating in the summer — are an even greater threat to the planet and all that lives on it.

        If we need electricity, we need not store nearly as much as you think if we find efficient ways to move it around the grid. Moreover, “cost” to produce and recycle batteries improves the economy as it is actually a sustainable enterprise. Fossil fuel extraction is not renewable and therefore builds inherent economic risks as we delay the migration from a dead-end technology onto a sustainable one. FYI, there’s an oil spill in the world every day, so those costs need to be calculated too. Solar is already the best financial energy investment in sunny climates. You don’t even need to be an environmentalist to appreciate that.

        1. Solar power is generally NOT stored in batteries (except perhaps for solar panels on somebody’s roof). It’s way too expensive. The current state of the art is converting solar to thermal energy, which is relatively easy to store efficiently. The medium is molten salt (not table salt, but something closer to fertilizer).

          Here’s a link to the first article I found on the subject:
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/solar-energy-night.htm

      4. You DO realize that most electrical power is needed in the daytime to power all the air conditioning for businesses, homes, stores and factories. Solar power is at its most efficient at the exact time power is needed most.

        There’s already pilot plants where solar power is combined with various types of storage systems to supply power up to 20 hours a day.

        Meanwhile, other renewable power systems can run 24 hours a day (wind, water, biomass, geothermal), and no one says there won’t still be natural gas generators needed to fill in the gaps.

      1. So far, I have never seen anyone turn off the Sun. Apparently, it has been shining continuously for billions of years.

        At any give moment, half of Earth’s surface is exposed to Sun. All we need is adequate power network (and most is already in place) to properly distribute power from panels that generate power to areas that use power.

  2. SB, Hmmmm. By your title, I would guess you doubt global warming but believe in a giant world wide flood that left no real marks anywhere in the world. Would I be right??

    Just wondering.

    1. I’ll believe in “global warming” when I’m presented with real data that’s not been massaged to elicit a politically expedient outcome.

      Furthermore, I’ll believe in “anthropogenic global warming” when I’m presented with data that show human industry caused the last major global warming period circa 1300 A.D. or roughly 460 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

      I push back when some people merely swallow whatever data they’re fed, without questioning the source(s), and then presume to dictate to me that “the time for talk is past.”

      1. The “Medieval Warming Period” temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C BELOW the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980, WORLDWIDE. It only SEEMS like a temperature anomaly because you only consider European temperatures at that time. More “cherry picked” data, oh so popular among the Denier crowd. But REAL science has to look at ALL the data, not just bits and pieces that fit their Fox and Friends spittle of the moment.

  3. The time for talk is past?

    Scientists who claim that carbon dioxide drives global warming are unable to explain a 17-year hiatus in rising global temperatures, all while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. Obviously, if carbon dioxide drives global temperatures, this is literally impossible: No correlation, no causation.

    The time for talk is past? Oh, really now? Who says so? Some CEO of a electronics trinket company?

    “Any fool can make a rule. And any fool will mind it.” ― Henry David Thoreau

    “Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.” ― Timothy Leary

  4. Guys let’s not squabble about global warming. The alternative energy path is a Good Thing simply for freeing us from reliance on foreign oil. Ditching those medieval middle easterners will be a huge relief

    1. +100

      As far as I am concerned, alternative energy – including solar, wind and nuclear – is a national security imperative. We must reduce our dependence on an energy source that comes from the most politically unstable region of the world. Kudos to Apple for doing its part.

      1. Great points. In fact we ought to take it further; the radical right love hyperbole, so let’s make sure to hammer home the point that if they are against alternative energy sources, they’re supporting terrorists.

    2. I’m with you. I don’t think that anthropogenic Climate change is a proven fact at this point, but Apple has the need and the money to generate their own electricity using solar. I’m all for big companies that consume gobs of power to chip into the development of alternative energy from which we may all benefit.

  5. What’s weird is that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting too. I’m not sure how we did it but I’m sure that it’s our fault too. As a stockholder I’m a little pissed off. When does this billion dollar capital investment in solar energy start paying off?
    A concerned physicist.

    1. The argument that Mars is warming is likely based on observations of ice melt on Mars’ South Polar Cap. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence that one sole instance of melting is the result of a planet-wide trend. In fact, as Skeptical Science points out, there is virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings — meaning it is scientifically not possible to tell if current observations reveal long-term trends.

      So you just regurgitate something that you read from an email that someone sent you, believed it and passed it on? Like a goose, every time you blink, it’s a brand new world?

      1. The same could be said for measurements here on earth. How accurate are temperature measurements from more than 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 150 or more? How accurate are temperature measurements manipulated to take into account the growth of cities around older temperature sensors. On Mars the data is very accurate due to a series of continuously orbiting reconnaissance spacecraft:
        Viking I and II (2 Orbiters 2 landers) 1976- 1980
        Mars Global Surveyor (orbiter) 1997-2006
        Mars Express (orbiter) 2003 – ?
        Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter 2006 – Present
        Maven (orbiter) 2013 – Present
        From a Mars spacecraft aerospace engineer and physicist

        1. So, have you EVER read any Climate science journals/papers or even the more general overviews on Climate-related web sites? Direct temperature measurements are only a fraction of the many different sources of data that can very accurately measure temperature over time. A couple other examples are tree-rings to measure growth rates (and therefore temperature averages), ice cores, which not only show amounts of ice deposited, but also contain trapped gasses which can be analyzed for CO2 levels and various isotopes of other gasses, some of which vary, depending on temperature. Oh and lets not forget the fossil records of terrestrial and especially marine organisms. We have very precise knowledge of which organisms thrive at which temperatures, so looking at their relative amounts, we can get a very good reading of temperatures going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago.

          1. Read lots of them . And please tell me the margin of error of ancient ice core CO2 samples or tree ring samples. These “scientists” are claiming 1/10 degree changes with a margin of error of .3 degrees. Accurate?? I don’t think so!

  6. “Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.” ― Carl Sagan

    1. SB, don’t let the buggers (and the down votes) get you down. I too have an open mind and have been waiting for a long time to see the unvarnished data supporting the AGW hypothesis. I’m an engineer by profession and haven’t seen any proof-able evidence, that is, any evidence that can stand up to the scientific method of determining causation.

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

    2. Carl Sagan said that because throughout history, “authority” was held by people because they had POWER, not necessarily because they were RIGHT. Religious leaders, Royalty and Business Tycoons all had/have Authority, but their “might makes right” authority is inherently unstable because it never builds a foundation that’s allowed to be questioned and tested.

      Science is fundamentally different, because Scientists are “experts” who must look at ALL the data or suffer the indignity of having other scientists pick apart their hypothesis. And those other scientists, must in turn beware of having THEIR criticisms taken apart as well. So new foundations (or additions to the existing foundation) can only remain if they withstand that scrutiny.

      But you take the word of bloggers (Homewood) and paid hacks (Booker) who have zero credibility in the world of Science exactly because they claim Authority with zero credibility. Carl Sagan would be ashamed of you.

      1. +100

        Wittsend has it right, but it bears a bit of point sharpening. When Carl Sagan said “authorities” he did NOT mean scientists – he was referring to princes, priests, politicians, powerful private interests, and others charlatans (sorta like Superior Being). You only need to watch a couple episodes of the original COSMOS to appreciate that Sagan had very little patience for those people who do not submit their assertions to the scientific method. On the subject of climate change, Sagan repeatedly warned of its reality, years before it became fashionable to discuss it: http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/05/carl-sagan-on-global-warming/

        There is little doubt that Sagan would treat with scorn Superior Being’s complete misuse of his quote.

      2. Wittsend, Then why are the scientists who dissent shouted down, dismissed and, marginalized by some in the so called scientific establishment? That’s not the way science is supposed to work.

        1. @jwsc01 – please provide a credible and documented case of where a legitimate climate scientist has been “shouted down, dismissed and marginalized” by fellow scientists in a public forum.

          Yeah, I didn’t think so.

          Real science involves peer review of observational/experimental data and analysis. If peer-level scientists find errors of fact or interpretation in published research, they judge the work to be defective – sort of like a jury. This is not dismissal; it is the modern scientific method.

          1. Examples, OK. You’re big boys so you can find these links yourself on Google. But a casual scan of the Internet reveals a news article where the writer is advocating that AGW believers shout down the skeptics.
            A show on HBO hauled a bunch of AGW believer scientists to debate 3 skeptical scientists. Of course, this wasn’t a scientific forum but they were shouted down, nonetheless. And Christopher Monckton, a controversial figure to be sure and I don’t agree with everything he says, has been repeatedly shouted down when he gives presentations.

            By the way, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying by thinking I don’t believe humans have any impact on the climate. I do. My beef is with those who say the sky is falling and we have to take radical action to save the planet or we’re all doomed. When it comes to the use of the scientific method they have not yet made their case.

            1. @ jwsc01 – First, you didn’t provide a single, verifiable example – just anecdotes that refer entirely to news and entertainment shows, and not the scientific process.

              A real scientist with observational or experimental data, put through a lens of analysis, writes a paper in which he or she clearly states a hypothesis. The paper is submitted for publication, which subjects it to peer review. Other scientists examine the data and question the analysis. If it cogently states a good case, the paper gets published even when other scientists disagree with it contentions. It is up to other scientists to develop experiments or observational methodologies to either advance or dismiss the new theory.

              In short, SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST – it is a rigorous process of squaring data with explanations.

              Using this as our standard, it is generally acknowledged that 98% or more of the credible climate scientists in the world believe that humans are having a serious and adverse impact on the Earth’s long-term climate.

        2. Ralph M is exactly right. In addition, what REAL scientists object to is when “fake” scientists (clowns being paid by the petroleum industry and/or the same snake oil salesmen who lied about asbestos and tobacco) are given “authority” (i.e.. equal time in the media) for NOT doing anything close to the same, real science that they HAVE to do. And then they have to listen to the lies about all the “money” that they are raking in for doing their jobs. Classic “projection” from the shills who are PAID lots of money from denier interests groups.

          1. Character assassination is a tool employed by those with weak arguments. Your use if the word “denier” doesn’t lend much credibility to you assertions.

            Continuing to say that big oil is behind climate scientists who are also AGW skeptics doesn’t make it true. It’s your turn to cite examples.

  7. Supreme Being et al. sound like they have been drinking the energy industry Koolaid… Maybe Google “doubt is our product” sometime. The only reason you believe so strongly that climate change isn’t real is because the massive global PR campaign from early 90s onwards bought and paid for your unguarded opinion. If you actually read even a fraction of the literature for yourself you’ll notice how absurd your current position is. The same people were hired to discourage belief in the dangers of smoking.

  8. 1300 acres is about 2 miles by 1 mile. That’s huge.

    As for the skepticism about global warming, there were a lot of people who believed lead in gas and other items did not present a health risk.

    Be very sure that the impact of greenhouse gases will only increase in the near term because of the industrialization of emerging nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being very delusional. The impact for future generations will be extreme. Western nations have to continue to reduce their emissions and develop technologies to reduce them further. These can then be applied in developing nations once the costs go down.

    1. Yes, 1300 acres is a big area. But let’s put it in perspective: Walt Disney World is Florida is 27,200 acres. Or about 20 times larger.

      So, imagine just five percent of Walt Disney World covered with solar panels. It’s probably less than the area currently covered by parking lots. In other words, 1,300 acres SOUNDS like an overwhelming amount of space. Except it’s really not.

Reader Feedback

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