Apple joins Obama’s American Business Act on Climate pledge

Today at the White House, Secretary of State John Kerry and senior White House officials will host 13 of the largest companies from across the American economy who are joining with the Obama Administration to launch the American Business Act on Climate Pledge: Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart. The companies making pledges as part of today’s launch represent more than $1.3 trillion in revenue in 2014 and a combined market capitalization of at least $2.5 trillion.

By signing the American Business Act on Climate pledge, these companies are:

• Voicing support for a strong Paris outcome. The pledge recognizes those countries that have already put forward climate targets, and voices support for a strong outcome in the Paris climate negotiations. To date, countries representing nearly 70% of global carbon pollution from the energy sector have announced post-2020 climate policies ahead of Paris.

• Demonstrating an ongoing commitment to climate action. As part of this initiative, each company is announcing significant new pledges to reduce their emissions, increase low-carbon investments, deploy more clean energy, and take other actions to build more sustainable businesses and tackle climate change.

• All told, today’s announcements total at least $140 billion in new low-carbon investment and more than 1,600 megawatts of new renewable energy, in addition to ambitious, company-specific goals to cut emissions as much as 50 percent, reduce water intensity as much as 15 percent, purchase 100 percent renewable energy, and pursue zero net deforestation in supply chains.

• Setting an example for their peers. Today’s announcements are only the beginning. This fall, the Obama Administration will release a second round of pledges, with a goal of mobilizing many more companies to join the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. In addition, on October 20-21, Secretary Kerry will convene a forum at the State Department to highlight American leadership in climate investment and innovative solutions to our toughest climate finance challenges.

Apple, already running all of its U.S. operations on 100% renewable energy, will bring an estimated 280 megawatts of clean power generation online by the end of 2016 through investments in Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Sichuan Province, China. Since 2011, Apple has reduced carbon emissions from its global corporate facilities, data centers and retail stores by 48%.

Full Obama administration press release here.

Apple’s climate change efforts might be based on misguided idealism – April 21, 2015
Apple’s strong commitment to the environment sets a powerful example for other companies – May 15, 2015
Greenpeace: Apple is tech’s greenest – May 15, 2015
Apple expands renewable energy, new environmental initiatives in China – May 10, 2015
Apple releases 2014 Environmental Responsibility Report; targets rising water use, production partners’ emissions – July 10, 2014
How Apple took the lead on the environment – February 22, 2012

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]


  1. “Climate change” — née “global warming,” (1990s) née “the coming ice age” (1970s) — is a ruse designed to facilitate the transfer of monies from wealthy countries to the backwater’s of the world. What will some of these third world trainwrecks do with the largess? Make their “leaders” wealthier and, if the country is Islamic, finance terrorism against the very same wealthy countries.

      1. July 27, 2015: Temperature Fraud At NOAA

        The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

        They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

        The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

        The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science.”

        Stop being gullible pawns.

        Temperature Fraud At NOAA

        1. The energy industry has trillions of dollars to protect their businesses and fund research. If there was more science discrediting fast human driven climate change, then it would be well funded.

          Instead, all the major oil companies have acknowledged climate change a real challenge.

          People get to black and white emotionally about all this. Fossils fuels have been a huge benefit to humanity!

          And the fact that we need to mitigate all kinds of behavior (over fishing, dumping garbage in the ocean, dumping chemicals, deforestation, etc.) as we reshape the surface of the planet to our needs isn’t surprising.

    1. Climate Change is real, undisputed among reputable scientists based upon long-term peer reviewed science. The only serious disputes are how much is driven by human activity, how fast the effects will accelerate and how much can be done.
      The sea level rise that is ongoing will put at risk a vast amount of infrastructure critical to the global economy – including the transportation resources necessary to make Apple’s supply chain and fabrication processes work. The added frequency of severe weather events- hot and cold, dry and wet- that result from the increased amount of water vapor in the warmed atmosphere will put communications infrastructure necessary for Apple’s e-commerce and cloud services at risk and diminish their reliability.

      Yes, it is in Apple’s interest as it is the other companies involved. As a shareholder since 2000 and a customer since before the Macintosh, I applaud the decision Apple has made to join this effort.

      The fact that it makes conservatard heads explode is just gravy.

      1. Global warming is not scientific in any way. It is purely a product of a spreadsheet that takes certain inputs and extrapolates into the future. The formulas have not been able to accurately predict any temperature event. The “science’ does not take the effect of the sun into consideration. It required manipulation of the inputs by the genius scientists to keep their precious “hockey stick” in their temperature chart. They were exposed as frauds when this was discovered.

        There are in fact thousands of real scientists who reject this lunacy and these scientists do not subscribe to the notion that science is done by “consensus” and counter views are not permitted. Nazis and Communists do subscribe to the approach to science. But not scientists.

        1. Climate changes were attributed several centuries ago to witchcraft. That was the consensus among the religious leaders. It is the same thing now with different actors, this time they want people to believe it is scientific. Twisted religious belief before, twisted scientific belief now.

          1. You really need to look at the data before you say such nonsense.

            Data is out there. It exists. Massive amounts. And researches from every corner of the world has looked into this and concluded largely the same. Not just Democrats (as in: politically liberal Americans). This is NOT an American political issue. This is a scientific finding by a massive body of scientific research from around the world.

            It is disappointing (for the rest of the world) that there is a (relatively small) group of people, in America, who choose to believe their political leaders, rather than objective and neutral independent scientists from every corner of this planet.

            1. How can you be so certain of your position when the vast majority of data used to support climate change (ne. global warming) remains unpublished? Aren’t you the least bit curious as to what raw data was used, what raw data was discarded, how the data was sorted and dispositioned, what algorithms and assumptions were used to generate the final output? I’d sure like to see it and have some independent third parties recreate the results.

              If these people are so damned confident in their predictions then they should PUBLISH the raw data they used and methods they used, and feel confident that independent reviewers will come to the same conclusion! Of course, the small wrinkle in all this is that most of their predictions thus far have turned out to be dead wrong. And that’s a fact.

            2. Your point that climate data should be available is good.

              Lots of it is. Took me two seconds to find these.


              We should hold deniers to the same standard.

              FUD without published backing, snarky sound bites, and accusations of wide spread funding bias (in an area where the energy industry makes trillions) are not science. They are classic denial.

              Same tactics the tobacco companies used. If there was science on their side they wouldn’t be resorting to that.

            3. Nevermark,

              Thank you for your response. I appreciate your tone and civility (with the exception of the denier label – an unnecessary embellishment).

              I am aware of the NOAA web site, and many others, and I accept the NOAA data at face value. (However, I can’t help but point out that some of the data accessible from those webpages is not truly raw data. Some of it has been filtered, necessarily mind you, and some proxy data is present. Just sayin’. I’m not arguing against the integrity of the data.)

              These historical temperature records are a great asset. But this is not the data that I have been seeking mostly in vain from the AGW crowd.

              The AGW argument has been that increasing CO2 emissions cause global warming. We know for a fact that CO2 levels have been steadily rising in the atmosphere. And we see some evidence in the historical data that the globe has warmed in the last few decades (although disputes have arisen about the vector of last 15 years). For the sake of argument I’ll accept that the rise of global temperatures may be true.

              Any good scientist will tell you, correlation does not equal causation. Yet so many people seem confused about the difference between the two. I’m looking for data that supports causation – the forcing function. And it’s damned hard to find – except in computer models.

              Computer models have been used for over two decades in an attempt to demonstrate that we understand the complex forces involved in global temperature change. What burns me more than anything else is that these models have been used as the primary ‘evidence’ for AGW in the media and by the AGW crowd. But as time has passed by and actual temperatures are recorded the models have proven to be wildly inaccurate. And no one disputes this. No one!

              So forget the models. Where is the hard data and statistical analysis supporting probable causation? I haven’t see it. And I’ve been looking. So yes, you better believe I’m skeptical. But don’t call me a ‘denier’. It’s a denigrating and rather idiotic label that has no place in an honest debate.

              Independent and open evaluations of the data and methodologies used to support causation could lay to rest the suspicion that published results reinforcing the theory of AGW were arrived at by predetermined political or financial motivations rather than sound scientific method. True science does not shut out debate. True science is always open to question. What did they say in the ’60s? Question everything!

        2. 1) Carbon Dioxide’s absorption of light is known, both by physics (our understanding of how photons interact with the molecule) and by empirical measurements.

          2) Carbon Dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere. We know this because we can measure the input of CO2 and the sequestration of CO2 in new growth and the oceans. We also know this from direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere.

          Given these two indisputable facts, the Greenhouse effect is a necessary conclusion. If someone wants to claim that there is no Global Warming, they would have to postulate and prove why physics and chemistry is wrong.

          The burden of proof is on the deniers. And, despite the millions of dollars poured into their propaganda by Big Carbon, they have been unable to disprove basic science.

          1. 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapor from the oceans evaporation. CO2 is tiny by comparison. CO2 is a necessary ingredient for plant growth. You emit CO2 as well as nonsense.

            1. If you are informed about climate at all, or even basic physics, you know that increases in greenhouse gases vs. temperature is not a linear relationship. You would also know that small increases in temperature by one means (CO2) can cause an increase by other means (more water vapor).

              If you are not informed enough to know basics like that, why are you commenting as if you know something?


            2. If you had a clue about science you would know that the idea of men controlling the global temperature is arrogance of such a massive level that it is funny. Particularly from people whose scientists can’t tell if it is getting hotter or cooler. The same people who came up with this told U.S. ethanol was a great idea. It has since raised the cost of food while producing more harm than good but now it can’t be undone. Like all liberal ideas it produces bad – like urine soaked streets in lovely San Fran.

            3. What is not funny is that you avoided any scientific support for your view and reverted to the “logic” of a comedian. Making fun of something doesn’t make it wrong. Are you a child?

              Yes, as you are well aware, human beings have impacted the planet in numerous global ways. Huge drops in ocean biomass. Huge drops in forest cover. 50% reduction in land biomass. Huge impact on ocean chemistry due to plastic dumping. On and on.

              Perhaps your history classes never mentioned the population explosion from tens of thousands of hunter gatherers to several billion technologically adapted people scouring the planet for resources of every kind?

              And then you mentally surrender again by falling back on name calling (and don’t even get that right) and irrelevancy (San Francisco has a lot of problems, so does Detroit.)

              FUD, name calling, irrelevancy. And yet no honestly regarding your misunderstanding of how CO2 increases can impact temperature.

            4. You don’t have any science. You don’t have a degree in meteorology or anything scientific. The supposed science is not science – it is pure made up data from sets of locations chosen to deliver the warming result the government hacks wanted. The scientists cannot use their “science” to tell us the average temperature next year, or the year after or even if it will be higher or lower.

            5. So do you a) disagree with the scientific community’s knowledge about the light absorption of CO2, or b) disagree with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

            6. mcdruid,

              You’re being argumentative by throwing up a straw man. Taking a well understood physical phenomenon, which everyone agrees on, and trying to extrapolate the veracity of that phenomenon into a complex system is nonsense.

            7. If well-established science points to X happening, and you don’t think X is happening, then you need to come up with a reason it isn’t. And you can’t.

            8. Climatology is highly complex.

              CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas but it has increased to far beyond the highest levels seen in the last 800,000 years. During the height of the ice ages CO2 dropped to as low as 185 ppm and went as high as 300 ppm during the interglacial periods. We’ve gone from 350 ppm to over 400 ppm in just the last 25 years.

              Much of it is being absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them to the point coral reefs are dying and other ocean life is suffering. The increase in atmospheric temperature (energy) is causing a higher evaporation rate of the oceans adding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere which with the added energy causes more violent weather. A thicker cloud layer can increase the Earth’s albedo which could mitigate the warming to a certain extent, but the warmer oceans and more violent weather could cause methane hydrates to be released from the ocean floor adding prodigious amounts of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

              The warming trend could cause the Greenland ice cap to melt and add a tremendous amount of fresh water to the North Atlantic disrupting the Gulf Stream which could trigger far colder weather along eastern North America and Western Europe.

              Add to this the melting of the south polar icecap, lowering the Earth’s albedo (undoing the raised albedo caused by the thicker cloud layer), and raising ocean levels adding further complexity to the situation.

              There are also many other considerations that I don’t have the time or energy to list, but needless to say that the tremendous amount of information and variables is far out of the realm of the understanding of talk show hosts or politicians. Trust what the 99.99% of scientists trained in this and related fields are telling you. What percentage of politicians can be expected to be honest when honesty would hurt their major contributors?

              And again for reference see: best viewed in full screen and occasionally paused toward the end to see the organizations involved.

            9. You are incredibly ignorant when it comes to science. How could 97% of greenhouse gas come from water vapor when water is H20—note the lack of carbon in water vapor—and carbon dioxide is C02? Most of the water vapor that rises into the atmosphere returns to Earth in the form of rain. Yes carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth, in exchange for which we get oxygen, but there has always been a healthy balance between the two gasses. We have now reached a point where , because of our activity, the balance is being greatly tipped toward carbon (and methane…) being pumped into our atmosphere.

        3. I knew this post would deliver hilarity from mouth breathing flag earthers.

          This is precious:
          “There are in fact thousands of real scientists who reject this lunacy and these scientists do not subscribe to the notion that science is done by “consensus” and counter views are not permitted. ”

          Please, post the credentials of these “thousands” of scientists. My guess is they are crazed right wing bloggers and paid shills for big oil.

          Listen mouth breathers…you don’t know everything and the depth and breadth of knowledge required to refute or disprove the majority consensus that climate change is real requires real book learning…at university…in an appropriate discipline…at the PhD level.

          I think this is what really is the issue—anti intellectualism—wingers can’t see the cost benefit of spending 4+ years in book learnin when they could be in “the real world” earning money. So stop looking at the Drudge Repirt/Red State/ Breitbart/Faux News et al. for science truthiness.

          Climate change is real…so suck on it.

          1. There were only tens of thousands of humans for most of our history until we evolved the the point where just a few of us could move us forward intellectually.

            Then civilization snow balled and so did our population.

            Biologically that was an instant ago and we have not physically changed. Most people have no idea what science is. They can only think about ideas in religious, group identity, or short term self-interested terms.

            The deniers don’t even know enough to argue against scientific conclusions with science.

            1. Most of the posters here claiming to know “science” think men can reproduce by having sex with other men. Most of these people also believe in evolution. Evolution would eliminate homosexuality because it is is incapable of producing the next generation. But that is an inconvenient truth.

      2. “Conservatards.” That’s a good one. You really showed ’em with that comment.

        Never mind that the climate has always been changing but that humankind has only been trying to keep track of it for a century or so and really has no long-term perspective on any of it. WHATEVER, RIGHT? Let’s just redistribute all of the wealth anyway, even though it won’t do a damn thing to affect the climate regardless. Conservatards, indeed, good sir!

        1. Nice Conservatard reply from someone ignorant or willfully ignorant.

          Tree Rings, Ice Cores, Soil and Rock Samples give us a very good database with which to study our planet’s climate history. To say something as stupid as what you offered up is like saying we have no basis with which to study Dinosaurs as we were not alive to gather data during their time on earth.

          1. Yes, oh great sage Believer of the Wonders! Let’s use tree rings and soil samples to predict the future climate of a wildly diverse ecosystem that we barely understand! I do hope you live long enough to see how foolish you and your ilk are. Hopefully you won’t do too much damage before then.

    2. Th world will burn, soon, but not from global warming. The complete breakdown of society is coming and all governments will adopt the Marxist model, and will actually acknowledge one ‘religion’ in the guise of Islam.

      It would be almost hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic to watch the homosexuals and women empower this movement that will lead to their total destruction.

      Lead the way, Cook! You sycophant moron.

  2. Climate change happens continuously throughout history. Many Ice ages come and go, and many warm ages come and go. It is a cycle. I awe at people thinking human can change the nature cycle. These people definitely are environmentalists since they want to change the natural environment, but not conservationists.

  3. The deniers are out in force today…

    I have no idea why you folks seem to believe that the only good business is oil business. Renewable energy can create lots of jobs in the U.S. Reduced demand for oil will, in turn, result in lower prices for oil-based products in the future and preserve that crude for its essential applications rather than simply burning it for energy.

    As for irrationalchrist, it should be clear by now that billions of human beings can produce global effects, and not just in climates. It certainly is possible to “change the natural cycle.” And, I might point out, natural cycles, themselves, are not always pleasant. But we can make them even worse.

    1. 1. No one said “the only good business is oil business,” Mr. Strawman.

      2. I’m not denying anything, but I do require verifiable facts, not specious temperature data that’s been fudged in order to create a desired outcome and promote a hidden agenda.

      3. The “natural cycles” have occurred for billions of years prior to the industrial revolution and will occur for billions of years to come.

      4. When the data can be massaged to produce whatever outcome is desired, I’m not buying it.

      5. The ease with which you Dem/Lib/Progs fall for a ruse designed to facilitate the transfer of monies from wealthy countries to the world’s shitholes is what’s really alarming here. “Question authority.” Isn’t that what your hippie parents used to chant on the commune? You pawns just line up, hop on board, and do what you’re told to do by ABC, NBC, CBS, Jon Stewart, etc. I prefer to think for myself, thanks.

        1. To answer your No. 2; it takes very little effort to find verifiable facts. Earth temperature science has been in existence well before this political climate change battle. Back then, there wasn’t any meaningful dispute regarding its reliability and consistency. As I mentioned below, reliable measurement of temperatures goes back only a few centuries. However, we can still determine with reasonable accuracy, the average annual temperatures using other “proxy” data (as mentioned below). All that data (massive amounts, meticulously catalogued and documented) tells us that the temperature variations over decades, centuries and millennia, seem to have been fairly consistent and within a specific range. Last 50 years have significantly departed from that range.

          Again, saying “I need verifiable facts” and refusing to look at them doesn’t allow anyone to authoritatively claim the opposite.

          Talking about ‘hidden’ agendas from the position of big oil is at best disingenuous.

          1. So all that data in the 1970s that pointed to a coming ice age was… a big oops by the scientists then?
            So the same scientists want to say, “ignore that, we meant warning now”.

            1. This is a very common myth these days. And it is still just a myth. Those of us who were alive in 70s remember that Newsweek article where they announced the possibility of global cooling, due to the increase of aerosol use. So, what happened? Well, even back then, out of hundreds of studies of temperature trends (at the time, rather obscure field), some six or seven were predicting the onset of global cooling. They have been largely discredited since. We dramatically reduced the use of aerosol, but significantly increased usage of greenhouse and ozone-depleting gasses. Hence acceleration of climate change.

            2. Here’s how it works – ONE Newsweek article decades ago is the basis to deny reams of verified data now because it provides a basis to dispute the consensus of actual climate experts.

              The mountains of data showing CO2 level increases and the impact of human activity on those levels having real consequences, well that’s all hooey because….Newsweek.

              It would be laughable were it not such a broadly held and aggressively defended (yet baseless) position.

        2. This forum is not the place for a deep and thorough debate on the scientific merits of this issue. In addition, even an abbreviated form of such a debate would be a waste of time. We have engaged in climate science on MDN many times in the past, and the minds of the Fwhatever crowd will never be swayed by facts or solid science. So be it. my only consolation is that you and your descendants will have to suffer through the impacts with the rest of us.

          If we are wrong, then the world moves towards renewable energy a little faster than might occur otherwise. If you are wrong, then humanity is in for a bag ‘o hurt. Thing in terms of likelihood/consequence and use a little logic.

    2. Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide, Greenhouse Gases, Shrinking Ice Caps, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Credit, Generation Investment Management – Al Gore – “Beware the Prophet seeking Profit!” – Dennis Miller

      Ever notice how a lot of the science “facts” being generated about the ills of Global Warming have funding from government grants? If they were to call it a hoax, their grant money would dry up as they would no longer be useful idiots to the imbeciles Al Gore & Barack Obama et. al.

      Ever notice how all these high profile, well known, ‘Save the World’ types on the Left never do their activism out of the charitable kindness of their heart and that it is the right thing to do, no reward necessary, and again, are never called on it! But boy let a Wall Street dude make some millions…!

      1. Government grants?

        List of organizations that officially accept the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming: NOAA, NASA, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Exxon/Mobil, BP, Chevron, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, The Southern Company, Lloyds of London, the government of China, Starbucks, the World Bank, Nike, Coke, The National Center for Atmospheric Research, The Royal Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Geological Society, The American/Canadian/Royal/World Meteorological Societies, The Smithsonian, The African Academy of Science, The Chinese Academy of Science and the US ARMY.

        1. Peer reviewed study indicating strong majority of scientists do not believe in man made global warming. So much for the “consensus”. Looks like the “deniers” are the ones who deny science does not at present support man made global warming.

          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.

          1. Line from the study you cite:
            “Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains.”

            In fact, the study’s conclusion is that people who work for Big Oil are less likely to accept AGW.

        2. University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research… How about these guys whose hacked e-mails revealed…

          “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

          “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

          “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

          The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

          The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

          “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

          “I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.”

      1. The sky may or may not be falling, but her is right, deniers are out in full force today.

        Sad day for science in America. Does anyone ask themselves, how did Americans put a man on the moon? Certainly not from the big oil money…

        1. The kind of people who talk about “deniers” are fanatical cultists. And that pretty much describes the left. Fanatics who from day to day can’t tell which way the weather is going but label anyone who does not agree with their political ideology a “denier”. This is infantile. It is worthy of Jim Jones. Or Hitler.

    3. Yes I think the political party that thinks killing viable babies so you make millions selling their body parts is a great idea should be able to control the planetary temperature to ideal levels. They have scientists who love the idea of killing lots of babies. Mostly black babies as Margaret Sanger recommended.

      1. If someone aborts their baby its not viable.

        Be against aborted organ research if that is your position, but make logical points if you have any.

        Scientists do not love killing babies.

        Scientists reporting that we are changing the climate, or suggesting that maybe we should limit how we change our environment to minimize change, is not controlling temperature.

        Climate engineering studies, such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles or the ocean with iron, almost always conclude it would be a terribly risky thing to do.

        1. You are retarded. Obama and all the Democrats voted to protect partial birth abortion. This is the abortion for 7-9 months fetuses where the baby is fully viable and delivered in a way that it has its brain sucked out and is thus killed right at the time of delivery. Obama and the Democrats have even voted to allow (force) health care workers to kill a baby actually born in a botched abortion. This is you. This is your party. It likes the idea of millions of babies including viable babies being killed by their mothers. And then you jackasses claim you want to save the planet. You won’t even save a little viable baby from murder. You are all disgusting and not deserving of life.

  4. “So the climate changes constantly, and we ‘the giveme-rment’ is going to protect you. So just do what we say that you can do.” That’s the load of BS these liberal morons want to foist on the Country. It was way, way hotter during the reign of the Egyptians, followed by continous, and alternating, cycles of cold and heath to this date. That’s how it works. And let’s not forget that there were no fossil fuels being burned by automobiles back in those days.

    1. …”It was way, way hotter during the reign of the Egyptians, followed by continous, and alternating, cycles of cold and heath to this date.”

      Where in the world did you hear that nonsense??? There are no historical records that would even imply that the temperatures during the ancient Egypt were any higher than they are today in the same area.

      Historical temperature records are reliable only since about 17th century. For data before that, scientists use ‘proxy’ records (such as tree rings density and similar), which can reasonably reliably imply temperature trends for years before temperature instruments were used for more accurate recording of temperatures. According to tree ring data, temperature gyrations over centuries and millennia (what could be determined through existing fossil and other records) were within certain tolerances until the middle of 20th century. Since then, average annual temperatures rose to the point that they are now significantly higher than ever in recorded history. Year after year, we get average global temperatures exceed those from previous historical records. Lay flat a hockey puck, with the end pointing up; the length of the handle represents all of Earths history, and the curved end represents 20th century. This closely resembles the average temperature graph.

      1. Dude, In the beginning, our world was a ball of fire. It was hot, really, really hot. It should be obvious to anybody that the general thermodynamic trend of our planet is one that has been trending from hot to cold, not the other way around. One day the Sun will run out of fuel; by then Earth will be a cold, dark, lifeless planet. As we exchange heat with space, we lose some of that heat to space. That’s just basic physics. If it wasn’t for the Sun, which provides the warmth that we feel today, we’d be like Pluto, which once upon a time, was also a ball of fire like we were. Of course we do have and rotate around a working Sun, so quite frankly I would suggest that you first look and understand the Sun if you want to understand climate change.1

        Now, let’s talk about the Egyptians. Is there is any historical data or indication that people back then ran around all covered up in heavy coats like the eskimos? Don’t think so, but we do know they ran around half naked most of the times; which of course is not indicative of a cool place. Of course not. However, we do have actual fossil samples of mammals and other species uncovered on what are now frozen tundra. What we know is that climate has always and will always change. The Sahara desert was once a green and lush environment, but we know what it looks like now. As far as how hot Egypt was way back then, I’d go with ‘really’ hot.2 I then take your three ring density data and I shove it.

        So according to your data, our “average annual temperatures rose to the point that they are now significantly higher than ever in recorded history.” Well you know, there is data and there is bullshit, and in the case of global warming, liberal spouted data is, shall we say, bullshit.3 Look, go to your kitchen and fill a pot full of ice, turn the heat on, and watch the water level rise. You can conduct this experiment a million times, and the result will always be the same, the water level will rise. Al Gore, probably a hero of yours, even predicted about ten years ago that Florida was going to be underwater by around just about now, unless we stopped burning fossil fuels – immediately. Well, we are still driving and burning fossil fuels. I live, and have lived, in Florida for decades, I have seen 40 year old aerial photographs of the Florida shorelines. I drive by the shorelines just about every other day, and guess what? the water’s edge and water levels here in Miami are still the same as they were 40 years ago. And so, you mean to tell me that we have historically high world temperatures, and yet, the water levels have not changed? How can that be? Remember the kitchen experiment? Yeah, I know, factual reality is too common sensical to trump liberal ideology. What is really happening is CO2 effects on the environment have been overblown. “According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.” 5 C’mon, CO2 is food for trees, plants, and algae, which create oxygen; the more CO2, the more trees, and the more oxygen, which in turn, keeps us alive. Who can be against it?

        Our reality is that in our future, just like in our past, humanity will experience extreme heat and cold, we’ll suffer through hurricanes, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, draughts and floods. You name it. Just like we always have. And all this shit will hit us like a ton of bricks not because of us burning fossil fuels and introducing high levels of CO2; no, it is just what it takes to live in our planet, so just let us learn to deal with it, and keep the politics out of it.

        Look, I can make my own conscientious decisions on energy efficiency and the way I live, but our liberal Big brother just wants to control our lives: how to think, what to eat, what to drive, what we learn in school, hot to heat our homes, etc. They already control our health care, which is shits, and they’re taxing us to death with it. And all of this because, as liberals say, “we can always count on the stupidity of the American voter.” 6

        Oh, and that hockey puck of yours, shove it too. For your information, that is the population graph, not the temperature graph.







    2. You don’t believe that Al Gore, if given a computer and a masseuse could not make the room hotter?

      Look how wonderful Democrats have made San Francisco. Like right now they are painting all buildings and streets with a substance that is the opposite of urine, so it will cancel out the smell left behind by the Democrat voters who sleep in the stairwells and by the curbs in San Francisco. Many of the public urinators there used to be the consensus scientists that Al Gore relied on in his break out comedy, Inconvenient Truth.

  5. It is clear to me that American political conservatives will rather believe their political leaders than the overwhelming scientific consensus, as well as gobs of statistical data that clearly shows anthropogenic (i.e. man-caused) climate change.

    Even if you, for some absurd reason, don’t want to believe various independent researchers from all over the world, just follow the money: on the one side, you have people who research the subject for the most part within their own means, as a scientific project (i.e. with the aim of uncovering trends as well as the causes behind them). On the other side, you have big energy (oil, coal, etc), pouring massive amounts of money into political campaigns, as well as PR efforts to discredit scientific findings (remember smoking some decades ago?) and raise doubt.

    America seems to be the only country in the world where statistically significant percentage of population consistently ignores clear scientific data (widely and publicly available everywhere) and chooses to believe the very questionable, and largely discredited “scientific” research produced by the oil and coal money.

    Nation of Kiribati has been populated by humans for many centuries. It is within the last twenty years, since ocean levels started to rapidly rise, that the nations literal existence is now limited by time. The government is rapidly purchasing land in Fiji and other neighbouring countries, because the ocean level rise will drown the entire country, and if the current trends continue, children born now will likely witness disappearance of their country into the ocean, and become permanent refugees somewhere else.

    It is truly unfortunate that there is such powerful PR voice that can effectively reverse scientific knowledge and findings of independent research from around the world. This is well beyond the level of ‘fake moon landing’ conspiracies.

      1. The climate-change deniers very much remind me of moon-landing deniers. With hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur scientists following the mission, (not to mention in Soviet Union, which was very much ready to shoot their own moon mission), observing and tracking the space craft, we now have a bunch of loons (whose voice is growing stronger and stronger, as time passes and the historic event fades into memory of those old enough to have witnessed it).

        The only difference is, they are a bunch of loons, and here we have otherwise intelligent people who actually believe, because their political leaders (and the billions of oil money) have told them so.

        This is very much like WMD in Iraq. Vast majority of the world knew very well there was nothing, but I knew quite a few intelligent Americans who were convinced, because Colin Powell (otherwise an honourable man) told them so.

        No country in the world, no matter what government system, has political parties with such immense power over people’s mindsets.

      2. There, we now have it on the good authority of two who majored in LGBTQ studies and did massive quantities of drugs and alcohol while in college and reform school.

      3. BINGO, INDEED! It’s hilarious to see you people climb on your high horses and spout your religious drivel to all of us know-nothings. Perhaps that’s part of the underrated appeal of being Climate Change Believers—that sense of smug superiority. It’s an extra perk of any priestly caste. It’s okay, though. We’re not denying you; we’re ignoring you.

        1. Conservatives for the most part just do not understand the fundamental thing that separates conservatives and progressives.

          Conservatives are motivated primarily by beliefs and progressives by analytic thought. It is far easier for one motivated by thought to change than one wedded to a set of beliefs.

          Climate Change is important because it is an existential threat to most of the world we know and has nothing to do with held values or beliefs. The numbers are what they are and the science points to a rough ride if things are not done to mitigate the impact and effect.

          Many Conservatives oppose any rational discussion of climate change because it directly challenges cherished assumptions and beliefs- as does evolutionary theory.

          It is not about arrogance. It is simple science.

      1. They have no science to fight the science with.

        Real scientific skeptics or contrarians don’t convince others by name calling and hysterics about bias. They publish the data and support for their contrarian view.

        Denial stands out due to its need to demean and downplay the professional experts as a group, as if these people were part of a secret society, instead of engaging with them all over the world at all their different posts and labs.

        No matter entrenched a view is in science, it can only be changed by better science.

      2. Wow so the site is delusional? So that means all the other sites and reports and news stories are delusional too. All they are is a news aggregator just like MDN.
        Such a great reply refuting all the hundreds of factual studies, reports of blatant data manipulation and copies of emails proving their lies.
        So glad you spent 10 seconds on that website.

  6. If these people could look beyond their political ideology, the money wasted on this farce could save potentially millions of lives, but never happens,

    No one wants dirty air or dirty water, but that’s always the hyperbole from the left, and its these people that buy this stuff because it give them power.. they don’t really give a rip that its a lie..

    All those scientist the say its real, go follow the money, you’d find virtually every one of them getting a government check and like a lot of government programs very little real over sight, just spend the money and tell us what we want to hear..

    Apple is tossing support behind a program that is eventually going to raise the cost of energy significantly.. Course they’ll only figure it out (Maybe) after its too late. And guess who gets affected most when energy costs go up… (hint: the poor)

    It always sounds so good, but no one ever seems to really count the cost or the impact…

    here is some more enlightened reading –

    1. So all of these are getting government checks to agree with AGW? NOAA, NASA, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Exxon/Mobil, BP, Chevron, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, The Southern Company, Lloyds of London, the government of China, Starbucks, the World Bank, Nike, Coke, The National Center for Atmospheric Research, The Royal Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Geological Society, The American/Canadian/Royal/World Meteorological Societies, The Smithsonian, The African Academy of Science, The Chinese Academy of Science and the US ARMY.

  7. about 15,000 years ago or about just 10,000 years before the Egyptians started building monuments the beach near my house was covered by a giant sheet of glacier ice. I can still see the grooves in the rock. A big chunk of the world was in deep freeze.

    What I’m saying is that climate change can happen suddenly naturally. The climate we are living in is not necessarily the ‘natural’ phase of the world. And it was not too long ago when the world was VASTLY different.

    I’m not debating fossil fuel burning etc (although I think all the targets, the crippling ‘carbon tax’ on fuel where I live etc will count for little as the POPULATION EXPLODES AND GAINS IN WEALTH i.e more people buy cars etc) but am just pointing out that for the vast span of human history Human beings suffered ice ages, dry spells etc. There were human civilizations and cities when the sahara was a lush oasis with hippos…

    1. there is not ‘edit’ feature so I can edit but re reading my post perhaps I’m not clear..

      I am not debating whether there is climate change or not

      what I’m saying is that there seems to be a misunderstanding among many today that the climate now is ‘natural’ and it’s been liked this for hundreds of millions of years or something and climate change is ‘weird’. What I’m pointing out and many don’t realize is that there were ‘modern’ Europeans running around when Europe and North America was covered with ice. The Gobekli Tepe temple in Turkey is 11,000 years old (the ice age receded about 12,000 years ago).

      Scientists are still debating why the planet warmed up and other giant events like why the rainforest of the Sahara turned into a desert (and this way before carbon industrialization)

      1. The area around Gobeklitepe used to be a forest, filled with trees. Now there is a single tree on the hill just above the evacuations, the rest having fallen to human harvesting.
        The tree provides the only shade for miles, something you would appreciate if you go and visit it tomorrow, because the temperatures in the area are about fifteen degrees above normal: reaching 112 today. I wonder what could have caused the heat?

        1. The Last Ice Age Glacier melted in Great Britain in the 18 th century just 300 years ago …

          Shoot to answer your “I wonder what could have caused the heat?” in Gobekli Tepe I can sarcastically say ” Gee I wonder what melted that glacier in Britain 300 years ago, must be all the cars…”

          and why did the planet warm up from the ice age 12,000 years ago just an eye blink in geologic time , the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

          But like I pointed out I don’t really want to argue carbon effects on climate change because I don’t know enough about it but I DO know that many people , like I said , BELIEVE that the recent climate (last few hundred years) is ‘normal’ and the world has been like this for hundreds of millions of years or whatever. There has been giant climate fluctuations which scientists don’t understand.

          I’m all for environmental protection. Save the trees etc.
          But a lot of people yelling and screaming know so little even about the general background of what they are yelling and screaming about.

          I live in South Canada now on an island, practically the whole of Canada not long ago was under an ice sheet.

          1) like I said many of the ‘save the planet’ initiatives are wonky (space precludes me from discussion them).

          Because of clueless Global warming fanatics for example yelling for ‘renewable’ energy WITHOUT THINKING IT THROUGH we have clear cutting of rainforest to grow sugar cane and oil palm to provide Bio fuel. I’ve been to Malaysia where you can drive for hours and see all the rainforest cut down and replaced by oil palm. there are photos of dead pygmy elephants stacked like pyramids in the clear cut areas.

 on neighbouring Indonesia:
          “Some of the most devastating costs of the biofuel revolution are on display in Indonesia, where massive clearing of tropical forests for oil palm plantations has caused staggering environmental damage and tremendous loss of biodiversity. ”

          2) lIke I said the Biggest Threat to the Environment is Population Growth. In a few years there will be another billion people on earth. So even beyond crippling ‘carbon taxes’ etc, even if you KILL every person in the western world (i.e drop carbon emissions to zero in USA etc) it won’t make much difference long term if you don’t control the population.

          I didn’t want to weigh in too much in Global warming controversy but just point out that people should get ‘less emotional and more factual’ and have a more basic understanding of science and nature.


          lastly i leave you with this THREE WEEKS ago most space scientists thought that moon of pluto was covered with CRATERS. Now we know it’s smooth like an eggshell. In LAST MONTH’s National Geographic was a painting of a cratered pluto moon, just a few weeks later it looks silly. A cautionary tale about ‘even the best scientist’s speculating’.

          1. I thought it was interesting that you brought up Gobeklitepe in this context since the microclimate has seen at least three man made changes since its construction. The first, as I mentioned, was the denuding of trees, which apparently resulted in hotter summers and colder winters. The second was the GAP project, which caused the summers to become more humid. The third, of course, is global warming.

            In your verbosity, the last point you make is the most telling against you, as it is. Real scientists change their mind when new evidence is presented, and reshape their theories to meet the empirical reality. Climate denialists, however, will never meet a set of facts that will prove them wrong.

            And that has also been proven.

            1. my last point is that SOME Global Warming jihadists are the ones who won’t change or look at facts , they have this near religious belief that Scientists they admire are flawless and that what they espouse is set in stone and always right , . Like I said many of them are near clueless, they believe this climate we have now is the ‘natural’ state of being and has been like this for hundreds of millions of years unlike as I pointed out : Ice Age remnants like glaciers are still around and just an eye blink ago in geologic time the World was Frozen.

              Me, i’m not denying anything, see regardless of what i say like (I cut and paste) “I’m all for environmental protection. Save the trees etc.” you keep thinking I’m for environmental destruction. People like you believe it with near religious fervour without actually reading.

              Your example of G. Tepe is also flawed of course if you cut down all the trees the place turns into a desert, –if you cut down all the trees in the USA it’ll turn into a desert, I’m not denying that — if there is no tree cover, it’s going to get hotter even simply because bare ground absorbs more heat and there is no evaporation from leaves and it screws up water cycles. Whether that proves Global Warming as generally espoused by many i.e carbon fuel rising CO2 greenhouse effect etc is a different thing altogether (although like I keep saying I’m NOT even denying that or debating it. My whole post was pointing out certain facts that certain people aren’t even familiar with like recent Ice Ages – see above)

              What I’m concerned about is that SOME global warming jihadists are so wrapped up they jump on every stupid bandwagon like Tropical Bio Fuels (which like said is destroying millions of acres of rainforest), when the Bio Fuels initiatives were being contemplated years ago I voiced concerns in forums and crazed people said “I didn’t want to save the planet”. Corn for biofuel has raised world food prices and killed millions of people.

              The really scary thing is that because of cluelessness on the Climate Worriers is that it PLAYS IN THE HANDS OF THE MANIPULATORS. Like the big agri business into Bio Fuels cutting rainforest down and becoming multi millionaires. Countries are going into Carbon Tax which like where I live TRANSFERS MONEY STRAIGHT INTO GENERAL TAX REVENUES (which will be siphoned off by the friends of the politicians into government contracts. People who don’t know what I’m talking about see Moscow Olympics corruption) using this band aid espoused by clueless people politicians can conveniently IGNORE the REAL SOLUTION: Fight for Population Cuts.

              but of course Carbon Tax puts CASH into govt. coffers but population control does not. Actually many governments want LARGER population as it increases the tax base. I was in a small third world country, quite densely populated with 30 million people, the PM wanted to boost it to 70 million to boost the tax collections (who go into the corrupt politicians pockets). That will practically result in new total environmental destruction in that country. But of course the clueless Climate crazies fight for Carbon Tax (a band aid) and few fight for Population Control which just plays into politicos game.

              when is the last time a climate conference which keeps harping on ‘Carbon Targets’ (which although good in a ‘theoretical way’ is pointless in reality as the population explodes, 9 billion in 2050) and never ‘Population Targets’?

            2. My point about Gobeklitepe is that there are some denialists (turn back one page, for example) who don’t believe that man can cause climate change.

              My point about Pluto, is that scientists follow what the data says. Denialists, however, deny first then look for data to support it.

            3. “scientists follow what the data ”
              weird then that you put posted that G.Tebe jibe in answer to my original posts because if you ‘follow the data’ of my posts you would have seen that all I stated were facts about Ice Age etc , how did you lump me with those that ” don’t believe that man can cause climate change.”? It seems that when people quote facts that make climate change advocates uncomfortable they put binders on.

              My point is that some Climate Change jihadists don’t quite understand that not all climate change is caused by humans and actually there have been vast upheavals of climate in earth’s 4.5 billion history some very very recent in geologic time like the melting (i.e. ‘warming’ ) of the last Ice Age not caused by humans.

              My point about Pluto is that climate Jihadist cling onto scientific ideas as if they were written in stone and even the best theories can be wrong (and although Like I said I’m not saying it IS wrong, CO2 Greenhouse effect is just a theory — you can’t prove it unless you have several Earth’s and do tests ).

              (and because of their religious fervour climate jihadists jump into insanities like Tropical Bio Fuels, get fixated on CO2 emission targets and ignore the more pressing problem of population growth. Have you EVER heard a politician like Obama or the Repubs make a speech saying such and such a country should slow it’s population growth as they are cutting the rainforest down etc? In about 30 years or less there will be 2 billion more people — most in countries who won’t care a hoot about emission accords , i.e equal to 7 USAs, so even if USA carbon emission goes to ZERO it will make no difference. ).

Reader Feedback

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