Apple CEO Cook: Corporations must help solve ‘climate change’

Apple CEO Tim Cook attended the inauguration of the academic year at Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, on Tuesday, November 10th.

“Apple CEO Tim Cook says businesses can’t wait for governments to solve issues like climate change and equal rights,” The Associated Press reports.

“Cook told students and faculty at Italy’s top business school, Bocconi University, on Tuesday that ‘the challenges are simply too great for businesses to stand on the sideline,'” AP reports. “He noted that ‘climate change impacts supply chains, energy crises and overall economic stability.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Put aside “climate change” for a second and just look at the dollars and cents: Apple is reportedly making money on these clean energy projects over the long term while also reaping positive feelings about their brand right now, today. The message is being delivered: Apple cares. People like buy from companies that they perceive to care about the environment. Eco-marketing sells Macs, iPhones, Apple Watches, and even some iPads.

Regardless of whether “global warming/cooling/whatever” turns out to be a sham or a significant long-term event that humans can affect or over which humans have little or no control, or something else entirely, Apple won’t have egg on its face for generating electricity from the sun rather than from other, less environmentally-friendly, less healthy methods nor will they for backing equal rights.

Apple backs White House international climate change pledge – October 19, 2015
Apple’s climate change efforts might be based on misguided idealism – April 21, 2015
Apple invests in China solar project – April 16, 2015
How Apple is making money off of its landmark $850 million solar deal – March 27, 2015
Apple’s $850 million solar plant investment rockets it to first place among U.S. corporations – February 12, 2015
Apple to build new solar farm, and some greens hate it – February 11, 2015
Tim Cook: Apple to build $850 million solar farm; Apple Watch will surprise everyone – February 10, 2015


    1. Agreed. For me, Cook and Apple are not eliciting good feelings. Just the opposite. Cook’s Marxist, extreme personal views are not only insulting but extremely dangerous from the wolrd’s most valuable company, and one within its grasp the ability to use coercion to achieve this crazy man’s goals.

      And shame on you, MDN, for using the ‘if’ when it comes the issue on ‘climate change.’ You guys usually bring balls to this silly political debate, but wimp out ’cause of your love for all things Apple. Which is odd since ya’ll display a little more common sense to Apple’s products and policies.

      Climate change, aka global warming, is pure fraud. Nothing wrong with clean air and clean water, but bullshit painted with political agendas is still bullshit.

      I can finally say I regret my investment in Apple’s products the past 37 years.

        1. You mean the actual PhDs who “hide the decline” or the actual PhDs who threaten to destroy their data before they’ll let a “skeptic” see it? …or the PhDs at NOAA who “adjust” the temperature readings upward when unadulterated satellite data shows no warming? These guys may have PhDs but they aren’t scientists; they are snake oil salesmen.

  1. Global warming is an Al Gore hoax (please study the below link).

    We all need to fight for equal rights, but there is a difference between rights and fairness. Many confuse the two as the same.

    I hope Tim stays focused on the “rights” side of the discussion (no pun intended), and one day he wakes-up to the global warming fraud.

    1. Hoax would be bad enough, but that is not the worst of it.

      This has become a multi-billion dollar siphon out of the pockets of taxpayers paying regulators, companies, lobbyists and their staffs enormous sums of your withholding dollars.

          1. That meme about a large percentage of scientists agreeing is false. They sent a survey to something like 11,000 scientists. Some tiny number, like 40 bothered to reply. Of that tiny number, a bunch agreed, probably because their bottom line depended on the hoax. Besides, science isn’t about consensus. Ask Galileo. It’s about what’s true, and what’s not true. You can always find a lawyer who says it’s legal to torture people, or a “scientist” who will corroborate your pet plan to become a billionaire from carbon credit trading, if you work in government. What we know about warming is this: Ten thousand years ago, where I live in Seattle, there was a two mile thick layer of ice. Then it started to melt off, as it has done around 20 times due to cyclical warming and cooling cycles on the planet. The notion that you can force the planet into a steady state is laughable. What are you planning to do about plate tectonics for instance? Going to stop Mt. Everest from rising higher as India slams into Asia? And sea level has risen 400 feet already since that time. I don’t recall anyone complaining about that. The problem with the world isn’t global warming, it’s global scamming. The level of carbon dioxide hasn’t changed (other than regular minute fluctuations) in at least 100 years. It’s a trace gas. There is almost NO carbon dioxide at all in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, and 21% oxygen. The 1% that remains is 60% argon. All the other gases, hydrogen, neon, and yes, carbon dioxide occupy that 4/10 of 1% of the atmosphere.
            Mark Twain would tell you that it’s easier to hoax someone than it is to convince them that they have been hoaxed. If you still believe that nonsense, I have a Nigerian lawyer that wants to talk to you about a large sum of money that has been bequeathed to you by a mysterious benefactor as soon as you can make a token payment for legal fees. Quit worshipping job titles. “Scientists” are as scummy and corrupt as other humans.

            1. “They sent a survey to something like 11,000 scientists. Some tiny number, like 40 bothered to reply.”

              “THEY” did this, did they? Who is “they”? And what is your source?

              On the other hand,

              “The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.”

            2. What, you don’t believe that there is a “they” out there doing things? “They” kicked off the gulf war. “They” kicked off Vietnam. “They” say there is no inflation. “They” say unemployment is only 5% when its actually closer to 23%.

              “They” are always saying things to get you locked into an ideological dead end so you will vote away your freedom and your wealth. “They” know you won’t go look up anything yourself once you are in the “hoax” pool.


              Meanwhile, back on the farm, “they” are turning the Pacific Ocean into a radioactive garbage dump while spending 1.2 trillion dollars a year on the global warming scam.

              Personally, I think we would be better off spending that kind of money addressing Fukushima and the Pacific Ocean garbage patch. It’s not conjecture; it’s there for everyone to see.

            3. Paul, looking to NASA (and NOAA, or the IPCC) for facts on global warming is a slippery slope. One would think that’s were the experts would reside, but each has it’s stalwarts that have advocated AGW with erroneous data. Much of it directing the minions today.

            4. dslarsen — sorry, but you are full of crap.

              1 article in 2258 (0.0004, or 0.04 %) about climate change published from November 2012 through December 2013 rejected man-made global warming. That article was published in the _Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences_.

              This is 1 author among a total of 9,136 (0.0001, or 0.01 %).

              Here is the link:

              This was not a survey. This was a review of published literature.

              There are 3 kinds of people: those who can think for themselves; those who can follow what other people think; and idiots. (Niccoló Machiavelli). It appears you are the third.

          2. That 87% (sic) of scientists (I believe the number usually quoted is 97%) is also a red herring. It was based on a study of scientists who were writing on. . . wait for it. . . writing on Global Warming, and was actually surveying whether the scientists bought into whether the increases in the 1990s were caused by natural causes or were anthrorpomorphic causes, i.e. man-made reasons. There were fewer than 1800 “scientists” writing (many of the authors who were surveyed were not scientists, but were actually politicians, activists, journalists, etc.), and 97% of those prejudiced authors who were already writing on Global Warming were convinced that it was caused by anthroprogenic sources.

            No one ever mentions a much larger study which surveyed over 19,000 real scientists with degrees in their respective fields, which did not find such a massive agreement. . . and in fact found that anthroprogenic causes were doubtful, and that even the fact of Global Warming was questionable. It was after that survey that Global Warming was changed to mere Climate Change. Science is not decided by vote or consensus.

            1. The point is that claiming all scientists support global warming when it is not “all scientists” but rather people writing papers in a self-selected, self-peer reviewing journals, means it is a circle jerk of self-agrandizing agreement that is not really critical of what they are doing. The original 97% figure came from a tiny self-selected respondent from a larger universe of non-experts and non-scientists who chose NOT to respond to a survey and little has changed since. These are surveys of people who have a monetary self-interest in keeping the cash flowing into what has become a cash cow of government and dedicated funded grants which require publication that toe the AGW line, and require that each of the scientists involved receive kudos from every other one. Of course they will support each other. Science, good science, should never be done by consensus. Gallileo was condemned by consensus scientists. Pasteur was condemned by consensus medical doctors who denied the need to wash their hands between surgeries or delivering babies and caused the deaths of thousands of patient and babies and mothers. Consensus scientists were convinced that the galaxy was all there was until Hubble proved them wrong. In other words, when science becomes consensus, it becomes dogma, and refuses criticism, and that is always wrong.

            2. Science, good science, should never be done by consensus.

              That’s just ridiculous. What do you propose? Every flat earther, believer in the crystal spheres and lover of dragons be given equal credence with Einstein?
              It’s ALL about the consensus.
              First there is a consensus.
              A new idea comes along.
              And a new consensus is built.
              If a new idea doesn’t build a new consensus, it floats in irrelevancy.

              “Gallileo was condemned by consensus scientists.”
              Not entirely true. There were many others with similar and related ideas at the time. And there were many powerful supporters – which is why he got house arrest instead of being burned alive by the believers in the Bronze Age Book of Fairy Stories.

              But anyway – what he proposed then became the CONSENSUS.
              Pasteur’s work led to a new consensus.
              The ideas of Hubble became the new consensus.

              And all of those will change again, as our understanding develops.

            3. No, their science was supported by facts. Not consensus. Not a vote based on popularity. It was not voted on. Science is built on being able to prove your hypothesis and getting your replicated by other scientists. . . not by getting a political faction to back you and shouting down all criticism, and refusing publication of countering research, which is what is happening in may areas in science today, not just climate “science.” Anytime a science gets politicized it becomes dogma and when its supporters start calling for criminalization of opponents, you are in trouble. That has happened with Climate Change proponents. That is insanity. Nothing in science is “settled,” ever. When we have seen strong evidence of fraudulent data from the proponents in multiple data bases on which they’ve based their claims, red flags have to be raised. . . especially when they are making so many claims that are not bearing fruit as their dates of events come, pass, and their predictions fail to be true. We’ve passed numerous of those predictions in the past two decades, Sean.

              As I said above, I was involved in another one of these climate panics forty years ago, using the same data, only then they were claiming a coming Ice Age. Not a single one of their predictions came true then either. . . and they were making just as dire predictions, and just as breathless claims. They have just gotten one hell of a lot more organized and learned how to do it better now. They have more politicians on their side and more journalists who don’t dig into the factual basis for their claims and if they do, they refuse to publish what they find.

              What happened to Acid Rain, Sean? How about the Ozone Hole panic? These all passed into history and you don’t hear much about them today. They were mere stage setting for Global Warming. . . strike that. . . Climate Change.. . which can mean ANYTHING they want it to mean.

            4. “What happened to Acid Rain, Sean?”
              A Republican passed powerful legislation that made a lot of difference to that and related pollution.

              “How about the Ozone Hole panic?”

              “Science is built on being able to prove your hypothesis and getting your replicated by other scientists. . .”
              Which is exactly what is going on with climate science. Facts, observation, hypothesis, more observation, analysis, theories — round and round. It is not a popularity contest, and it is not a “political faction”.

              It has become political BECAUSE it is so strongly based in extensive, real science.

              P.S. do you also believe there is nothing wrong with tobacco, as industry maintained for many, many years?

            5. So you’re saying that the scientific consensus is all a scam, and yet you choose to believe “articles” posted on web sites funded by oil companies?

              Seems like a pretty idiotic stance to me.

              And I say that because I’ve seen MANY people post “articles” on FaceBook and elsewhere that claim climate change is wrong, etc.

              I’ve looked into the site on which it was posted in each case and have yet to find ONE that wasn’t a right-wing, oil-funded propaganda site.

              As I noted on “” earlier, it’s a smokescreen site run by the Koch brothers (oil billionaires).

              Oh sure, they do a good job in burying that fact….you have to read to find out the site is a “project” by CFACT, which is in turn funded by “Donors Trust”….which is in turn funded by the Koch Foundation. It’s basically money laundering!!!

              And yet gullible people like you believe the crap.

              I assume you’re also smoking two packs a day, too, because after all…Philip Morris conducted numerous “studies” showing that cigarettes aren’t harmful!!!

              Surely big business wouldn’t lie to us to protect their profits, would they??? Say it isn’t so!!!

          3. Jack–time to lose the consensus argument. Let’s not forget the “majority” isn’t always right. Is the earth flat? Umm-no. Sun circle the earth? Nope. Just a few decades ago, the consensus of the scientists of the mind thought homosexuality was a mental illness.

            1. “Let’s not forget the ‘majority’ isn’t always right.”

              Nobody said the majority is ALWAYS right.

              And what’s your alternative… “Who the heck knows? No matter what the evidence and how many scientific papers, I’ll just go with 50/50.”

        1. CFACT (of which is a “project”) is funded by the oil industry, therefore everything they post is “studied,” “analyzed,” “interpreted,” and written with tremendous bias.

          It’s pure bullshit, in other words.

          Check wikipedias page on CFACT if you don’t believe me…

      1. Geologic time is expressed in millions and billions of years. But we have experienced climate change in the past 100 years. The difference is huge and relevant.

        Most people cannot fathom the difference in magnitude between 100s, millions, and billions.

        One hundred seconds is 1 minute 40 seconds.
        One million seconds is 12 days.
        One billion seconds is 32 years.

        Geologic time is irrelevant as far man-made climate change is concerned. So is the variation in carbon dioxide levels over geologic time periods. We all know that big things can happen to the planet over millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of years.

        But when big things happen within 100 years, it is an issue. Like global warming and oceanic acidification.

    2. Better smooth out the crinkly aluminum foil on your hat. It’s not blocking the mind-control rays from the black helicopters. Climate change is quite real and there are well-documented observations backing that trend that go back a hundred years.

      Don’t cut your nose off to spite your face. No matter how much you hate the straw men in your life (Obama, ‘libs’, gays, velociraptors, whatever), climate change will affect your life. The doubters can always be traced back to oil and coal companies as well as the commentators they back.

        1. You keep citing ONE source that aligns to your opinion while disregarding the expert opinions of the vast majority of those with direct, relevant professionally derived knowledge and the data to support a broad scientific consensus to the contrary. You’ll need far more than that to provide a compelling argument to the contrary. The onus is on you to disprove the actual subject matter experts, not on them to convince you.

          1. From October of 2014:

            “Sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.

            Climate scientists have been puzzled by the behaviour of the southern ice for many years now. The most commonly used models say that its steady growth should not be happening in a warming world (though the warming of the world is also in doubt, as air temperatures have been steady for the last fifteen years or more – and it turns out that deep ocean temperatures are not increasing either, leaving the “mystery” of the apparent end of global warming “unsolved”). Antarctic ice at ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: We have more to learn

            There are multiple sources on the hiatus in Global Warming for more than 18 years. Too bad you can’t believe the facts.

            1. Warmer air holds more water. More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation, which at the cold South Pole falls as snow and produces more ice. You may be puzzled, but scientists in the field are not. Climate change and global warming do not mean the end of snow, ice, or cold areas of the world. Visit a local university and talk to a specialist in the field. She or he can answer your questions.

            2. I am not at all puzzled. . .this is the system regulating itself, Lee. I was studying Global climate in honors classes in college in the early 1970s, using the exact same evidence the Global Warming crowd is using now, only then it was the coming ICE AGE. . . and some of the Climate crowd then are the same as now. They had the exact same solutions, too, more government controls of the economy. I’ve been following them since then. . . and see exactly what they are doing. You cannot have it both ways, but they are trying hard to do just that.

              I have been pointing out for years that ICE AGES require a huge increase in HEAT INPUT from some sources to evaporate the oceans in the moderate zones into the upper atmosphere to move the water vapor to the Northern and Southern climes to fall as snow and sleet to freeze into growing glaciers and ice sheets to move South or North from the poles. Otherwise, no ice cap growth and therefor no ICE AGE. I.E., it takes one hell of a lot of heat to create an Ice Age. Cold temperature, by itself, cannot do it, not to get the miles thick ice caps and glaciers we have evidence of in our past history.

            3. So you’re essentially saying that the info you remember from college classes you took 40+ years ago is more relevant than MODERN data from experienced PhDs with actual knowledge of the matter?

              At this point, the info in the classes you took would be best placed in the History department, not science class.

            4. “You may be puzzled, but scientists in the field are not…”
              Did you even read the article?
              HOW can warmer temps produce MORE ICE???????
              The climate dupes are hilarious.

            5. Blathering idiot. For example… a disruption in the Gulf Stream could move it further south, rapidly putting Britain in a very frigid climate – and under a lot of snow. The OVERALL rise in temperature can produce extreme heat in some areas and, yes, more snow in others and ice in others…. ALL of which is potentially disruptive to humans.

            6. How can warmer temperatures produce more ice? Easily. Like I wrote above, warmer air is able to hold more water. If a local climate rises in average temperature from –10ºc to 0ºc, an extreme example, the weather would still be cold enough to snow, but snow a lot more because of the higher water content in the atmosphere. This snow would fall and eventually compact and produce ice. Thus it got warmer and produced more ice. It’s counterintuitive, I know. Climate change is a subtle science worth studying.

            7. An increase in mean planetary atmospheric and oceanic temperature will bring about global weirding, since some places will warm while others will cool due to changes in air and water currents and other factors. One particular area on the planet says nothing; it is the entire planet that matters. We are interested in mean planetary atmospheric and oceanic temperatures.

              The best way to measure net changes in oceanic temperatures is to measure the speed of sound through them. The US Navy has been sending sound waves (SONAR) through the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to and from Japan for decades. Their data shows that ocean temperatures have increased over the years. It is not a debate. You can look it up. My source is a book called “The War of the Whales” about standings and deaths of of sea mammals caused by Naval Sonar exercises, particularly in and around an ocean rift in the Bahamas.

              Your military believes in man-made global warming. Geez, this must put Republicans in a real tizzy: your own military believes it is happening, still you deny it. Ha ha ha!

              PS. Regarding Antarctica, you are citing ice surface area. But the real issue is ice volume. Antarctica is miles thick. I think it is 5 miles high at the center of the continent, all of which is above sea level. You can imagine how thick the ice is below sea level. I understand the entire continent is melting underneath. But even if it were not, it does not, of itself, refute global warming.

            8. Excuse me, Transition Fuels, but Antarctica is a CONTINENT and the ice is on LAND, it does not float on water. Your claims that the antarctic ice is floating and that it is melting below the five mile thick ice mass are bogus, drawn out of YOUR imagination. You understanding that “the entire continent is melting underneath” is based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE except what you’ve pulled out of your ass.

            9. Most of the antarctic continent technically lies below “sea level”. And 98% of its surface is ice, which is like 2 miles thick. It is a huge area, about twice the size of Australia. It holds 90% of the globe’s ice.

              But the more important issue is that one must look at mean planetary atmosphere and ocean temperatures to ascertain global warming trend. Spot variations don’t mean much.

              The US military believes global warming is occurring and is acting on it. All the major insurance companies around the world believe it, too, and are also acting on it. And places like NYC.

            10. So does “most” of all of the continenents by that definition. More twaddle. No one has measured the mean planetary temperature. . . nor figured out how to measure it. They use computer MODELS and models use data input and historic data. . . which fails from the issue of GIGO. Garbage in, Garbage out. The historical data is sadly lacking. . . because the vast majority of historical data is from MODELS, based on assumptions that one thing is like another. Tree ring data, for example, and the assumption that scientists can determine temperature from tree rings widths in dead wood. That data has been roundly disproved. It is far more releated to RAIN FALL, not temperature. Wrong assumptions. Some is based on the rings in just two trees, but the rings in trees around them from the same period don’t AGREE. Say what???? So why were those trees systematically excluded from the study? They did not fit the meme. Oops. Can you spell “scientific fraud?” I certainly can.

              Why were the measure temperatures on MARS and TITAN also increasing during the same decades as they were on Earth if the causes were anthropogenic? We certainly were not boring seqeustered carbon on those celestial globes there. . . but the sun was outputting a tad more energy during that time, which MAY be causing the warming, being a minor variable star which will affect all the bodies in the solar system which is what we saw. Input more external energy into the system and you WILL get warming, independent of the atmospheric CO2.

            11. How to measure planetary temperature changes, specifically the temperature of the world’s oceans and atmosphere, with reasonable accuracy.

              Net global ocean temperature change is measured using low frequency sound waves. The velocity of sound through water increases with temperature. Thanks to the Navy, we have decades of data on the speed of low frequency SONAR from the US East Coast to Japan (through both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans). The data indicate an increase in the temperatures of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is a more comprehensive measure than surface water temperature analysis (which also indicates warming).

              Atmospheric temperature or, more accurately, the temperature of the troposphere (the layer between the earth’s surface and the stratosphere) is measured using satellite data and radiometry/spectrometry. These data indicate warming of the troposphere over the past 4 decades, the period when this method has been available.

              These techniques were not available when you took your honors climate change class in college in the early 1970s.

    3. All of you reading MDN have lives utterly INFESTED with science.

      When you open your eyes in the morning, the paint on your ceiling is the product of science.
      You use a phone that is the product of many subtle branches of science.
      Its functions rely on deep science… e.g. the calculations of relativistic effects necessary to make the use of gps satellites accurate.
      The screen you are reading this on SCREAMS science.
      Your clothes. Your food. Your vehicle. Your golf club/mountain bike/fishing rod/skis/whatever. The operations you have had or will have. The drugs you take or will take. The vitamin pills.
      And on and on.

      You utterly rely on and “BELIEVE IN” science – and trust scientists in almost every second of your lives.

      But you somehow believe this particular group of scientists is in some kind of world-wide conspiracy of lies.

      Gimme a fuckin’ break!!!

    4. The site from which you quoted ( is funded by the oil industry, therefore completely irrelevant.

      I’ve looked them up before…they’re one of many BS profit-protecting and politically-motivated “news” sites out there.

      Post something that *isn’t* from a conservative “think tank” (read: propaganda machine) and maybe I’ll actually read it.

  2. I/ve got an idea … let’s let the same people who brought you the ponzi scheme that was the stock market convince us the only way to help the planet is set up a carbon tax market where they can buy their way out of polluting (anyone remember that word) and manipulate it just like they did the stock market … Brilliant … Excuse me while I check on my carbon footprint app whether or not I should breathe for the next few minutes …

  3. “Regardless of whether “global warming/cooling/whatever” turns out to be a sham” – this is not actually in question, MDN, unless you count psuedo-scientific BS peddled by carbon company shills. Stop the madness.

    1. Actually there is a ton of empirical evidence that global warming is not occurring in any meaningful way apart from natural climate variability. It’s the models that are predicting all these changes and the resulting catastrophes. The models that predict climate change based on anthroprogenic causes have all fallen outside the norm for scientific acceptability.

          1. Hottest years on record:

            1 2014 Hottest
            2 2010
            3 2005
            4 1998
            5 2013
            5 2003
            7 2002
            8 2006
            9 2009
            10 2007

            But 2015 already looks to not only break the 2014 record but by over 0.1 degrees.

            The dumbtards keep taking about a pause in warming because 1998 was an El Nino year and so not beat until 2005. But in years in between continued to bring up the mean temperature. According to dumbtards, only the last highest year counts and other hot years don’t.

            But then 2005, 2010, 2014 and now 2015 have beat 1998.

            2014-2016 keeps posting braindead comments because he/she doesn’t have anything more intelligent to provide.

            Also 2014-2016 does not address these easily measured facts:

            – That C02 is a green house gas (this is basic chemistry)
            – That CO2 is going up quickly
            – That the largest contributor to C02 is fossil fuels (more than volcanos)
            – That C02 is acidifying the oceans

            1. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not “chemistry” but “physics,” Nevermark.
              The largest contributor to CO2 on the Planet Earth is all the animals exhaling CO2. Mankind and all his fossil fuel buring has added only 1 part per 10,000 in all the years he has been burning them, if that is actually the cause. It has been shown that forest and wild fires account for about half of that, and those are outside of mankind’s control. The atmospheric CO2 is only 4 parts in 10,000 of other gasses. It has been as high as 2 parts in 1000 in the history of this planet. . . and the planet survived as did life, in fact life was in fine shape during that time. The reason for the high a CO2 concentration was, in fact an overabundance of plant life.
              CO2 is NOT acidifying the oceans. Like plantlife on land, the plantlife in the oceans thrive on CO2, and exhale Oxygen, O2, converting the Carbon, C, into the structure of the plant. Carbonation has to be done under pressure to actually convert much H2O into the Carbonate Ions. There literally isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do this. Nor has there really been any evidence of the claim that just the surface water of the ocean has become more acidic by 0.1 pH (Oh, what a disaster!) since the start of the industrial revolution over 200 years ago! Nor is there evidence for the other claim that the Oceans of 20,000,000 years years ago had a more acidic pH than now . . . or that it may have been less acidic either. The evidence is just is not there! NThis is a completely bogus nose picking claim by the anti-Global Warming crowd. . .
              CO2 has been proved to be a TRAILING indicator to increases in temperature, not a leading indicator, usually by hundreds of years, in the historic record. Water Vapor is a far more active green house gas than CO2 and far more responsive to heat.

            2. 1) The behavior of a chemical (C02) is chemistry. Chemistry is a subfield of physics (as are many sciences).

              2) C02 is both a leading and trailing indicator. C02 increases can both cause (basic physics/chemistry again) and be caused by warming (due to carbon stores being imbalanced as a result of warming).

              3) Your claim there is no evidence of ocean acidity in the past is just ignorant. Fossils and sediments both throw light on past acidity. And in any case, we are measuring both increases and the harm it is doing in our oceans.

              4) Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas but has a fast cycle in our atmosphere so is not a long term problem unless increases in vapor are caused by something else. Methane is also strong greenhouse gas, but its effects don’t last as long as CO2.

              You don’t have a clue so why post?

            3. You blather on . . . but really, chemistry is a sub-field of physics??? Perhaps in a really esoteric thinking. You are dancing in all of your responses to my post. The Historical record of CO2 increases is quite plain, the temperatures INCREASE, then years later, CO2 increases. They have NOT found the reverse. Never. The pH of the last 200 years being increased by 0.1 has no accurate record. The ability of scientists (chemists) to even MEASURE pH 200 years ago simply did not exist! As I said the claim is bogus. Water samples of ocean surface were not kept and do not exist. It is a claim without EVIDENCE! One cannot impute a solution purity from fossils and sediments. It is an impossibility. If you think that kind of accuracy of pH can be imputed from a ROCK is possible I have a Nigerian Prince who has discovered a long lost relative of yours who has left you Five Million US Dollars that you can claim for just a small fee payment. That claim, like the Nigerian prince’s claim, was pulled out of someone’s ass.

              CO2 is a minor gas in our atmosphere and the proof of its effect on our atmosphere is lacking. Water vapor as a greenhouse gas is longterm (can you say clouds) and entraps heat quite well. It also reflects solar heat very well. The CO2 claims come from the false equivalency attributed to Venus and its 93 bar 96.5% CO2 atmosphere with temperatures high enough to melt tin. . . with the assumption that it should have temperatures close to Earth’s equatorial reagions instead.

              However, they don’t stop to ask why it has a 93 bar and a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere in the first place, which is the question they should have asked instead of building a false equivalency of Earth with its 0.04% CO2 atmosphere and assuming it could also result in a runaway greenhouse effect.

              They also never ask why Venus emits more heat than it receives from the sun. Of course, that doesn’t fit at all with their runaway greenhouse effect story.

              Frankly, nevermore, it is you who doesn’t have a clue.

            4. Swordmaker — Sorry, but you are wrong.

              Earth scientists and climate scientists distinguish between sequestered carbon and non-sequestered carbon. The non-sequestered carbon is the carbon used in life forms: plants and animals. This remains more or less stable over time: the carbon we exhale is used in plant photosynthesis, which goes back into our bodies as food to nourish our cells. Basically, non-sequestered carbon is a closed system; it all gets used an recycled. (EXCEPT: humans have cut down about 40% of the planet’s forests for agriculture, so we have in fact altered the level of non-sequestered carbon on the planet.)

              The real problem is sequestered carbon. This is the carbon stored in fossil fuels. When we take sequestered carbon and burn it, each carbon atom combines with 2 oxygen atoms (from the air) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). _This_ CO2 — the CO2 produced from burning sequestered carbon — is in addition to the non-sequestered carbon used by life forms on the planet surface.

              Take all the carbon fuels humans have ever burned, multiply the weight of carbon by 3.67 to get the weight of CO2 produced. To put it in perspective, 1 gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of CO2 when burned. (And it does so from a sequestered source of carbon.) So this CO2 is new to the planet surface.

              By burning fossil fuels, with their _sequestered_ carbon atoms, humans have increased the CO2 level in our atmosphere by about 40%.

              No, CO2 is not poisonous. But it is really good at reflecting light waves, or “trapping heat” in the atmosphere. And, yes, about 1/3 of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.

              Check your facts. And consider that your position might be wrong.

            5. I have been studying these claims for 40 years. . . and I see nothing of merit in the claims. A gas that makes up 4/10000ths of the composition of the atmosphere of the planet is not a major pollutant when it increases from 3/10000ths, expecially when it has been shown to have been five times higher in the past without adverse effects. . . especially when the historical records show that CO2 has always been a trailing indicator in temperature increases, and never a leading indicator. This is swept under the carpet because it just doesn’t fit the story they want the public to believe.

            6. This is a logical fallacy. Potency is the issue, not just quantity. For example, some drugs are potent in thousandths of grams, or milligrams. Other drugs are potent in hundredths of grams, eg 250 milligrams. Others in larger quantities. The quantity is irrelevant without knowing its potency. Would you rather have a small diamond are a large lump of coal?

              A chemical’s effect is a function of what the chemical does, not just its amount. Same goes for CO2. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere exceedingly well. It does so at the former level of 280 parts per million at the outset of the industrial era. It traps even more heat now that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 to 400 parts per million as a consequence of burning hydrocarbon fuels. Yes, it is still only parts-per-million. But it is a 40% increase over previous levels.

              You dismiss CO2’s (known) impact on climate change because the existing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are “small”. This does not recognize the fact that humans have increased CO2 by 40% in recent history. And CO2 turns out to have a huge impact on global warming.

            7. You are making the fallacy. Claiming something is a 40% increase over its previous level is an absurdity. If it was one 1 part per trillion and suddenly becaeme 2 parts per trillion, you could say it had a 100% increase, yet the increase is meaningless. It is minuscule and insufficient to do what you claim.

            8. A researcher discovered LSD when working for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. He realized he had something really powerful when people found him hallucinating on a stone wall all weekend. A minuscule quantity of the research chemical had apparently seeped through his lab gloves. LSD is dosed in micrograms, or: millionths-of-a-gram. Typical doses are 50 to 150 micrograms: millionths of a gram. Some chemicals have a huge effect despite their relatively small quantity. (For reference, many antibiotics are dosed in amounts up to 1/2 of a gram (ie, 500 milligrams, or thousandths-of-a-gram).

              Quantity is not the only relevant issue for chemicals, it is also important to know what the chemical actually does. CO2 excels at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Think of it as the LSD of heat-absorbing chemicals. It does not matter if it is measured in parts-per-million. If “the dose” is increased by 40%, it will have a huge effect. Like taking an extra 50 micrograms of LSD (an amount that would be irrelevant for many drugs, but not for LSD).

              You call yourself a scientist?

              You might want to go back to Sammy’s Science House and re-do the big, middle, little exercises.

        1. You mean like the satellite data measuring no atmospheric warming for the past 18 years, or the growing ice in Antartica, or the mysterious lull in Atlantic hurricane activity, or the new data that shows that growing coral reefs are causing ocean acidification, or the tiny amount of sea level rise, or the greening of the planet, or that Arctic ice is growing again because of El Niño changes?

          Or would you believe inaccurate models, the disproved hockey stick, altered raw ground station readings (without disclosed algorithms and reasonings for scientific accountability), and selective ice core and tree ring data?

          What evidence is there to suggest that the climate changes occurring now are any different than in centuries last? In fact, some of the changes are revealing a warmer climate that predates the industrial era. A recent paleontology study suggests that higher CO2 conditions with a slightly warmer world contributed to a lush earth and also larger animal growth.

          I would like to see less fossil fuels being used not because of CO2 (which has been mostly beneficial) but because of CO and other particulate emissions that are harmful to our health.

      1. “The models that predict climate change based on anthroprogenic causes have all fallen outside the norm for scientific acceptability.”

        The VAST majority of scientists disagree with you.

        1. No, they don’t. The 97% meme was based on a fraud. There is so much proven fraud in the research that anything the AGW proponents claim is now suspect. The infamous Hockey Stick has been debunked by statisticians who have shows that if you put any data at all into the model they used, it will create a hockey stick graph with the mathematical operators they used. NASA claims they can measure Earth surface level temperature changes from upper atmosphere satellite infrared measurements without any correlations or proof they have any connection. As a result, their graphs they have on their website, shows a 0.5º C. Global temperature increase Global mean temperature increase in the last 15 years. And all the warmists ignore the fact that CO2 is a TRAILING factor in all historic temperature increases, ALL of them, not a leading factor, usually trailing by several hundred years after the temperature increase. Again, these are well establish facts, not theory or disputed.

    2. Virtually all the climate scientists of the world are in on a plot to mess up the profits of oil companies.

      Or – the said ultrarich owners of oil companies are greedy psychopaths who’ll stop at nothing to make the next buck – or billion.

      Hmmm. Hard to know which is the truth.

      1. For once you perhaps wrong the oil companies unjustly. Officially, they ALL ACCEPT GLOBAL WARMING. As do the coal companies, the US military and everybody else with a brain – I mean in on the hoax.

        On the other hand, the oil companies have spend hundreds of millions of dollars secretly to oppose climate science. The results of that can be seen by many of the posters on this topic.

        1. So, since oil companies are “secretly” spending hundreds of millions to oppose climate science, someone would have to provide proof that you were incorrect. But of course, you can’t prove a negative. So it’s OK for you and others to spout off about these terrible oil company shenanigans with no proof or evidence whatsoever. Vilification without evidence – isn’t that kind of evil?

          1. Exxon, somewhat uniquely among Big Carbon, did release some of its figures for its anti-GW propaganda.

            But you miss the point, ALL corporations accept AGW publicly and openly. Other than PR organizations, such as Heritage and Heartland, you can’t find any group that denies it. Ergo, denailism is a conspiracy theory.

      2. No, they are not in a plot to mess up the profits of the oil companies. They are in a plot to keep the money flowing to them for their research and to keep the paycheck for their families going from government and private grants. If you disagree with the now orthodox and politically correct AGW, the money will stop flowing, you will lose your position at your University, and you won’t get published. And your buddies will both shun and ostracize you. . . and the Liberal students will key your car. Oops! Can’t allow that to happen.

        Oil Companies have one of the lowest returns on investment in the world. They’d often do better by taking their money and putting it in a mutual fund invested in anything except oil. Look it up. You’ll find it’s true. Fracking has made a difference for some but historically, the returns are low. Claiming the Oil companies are “owned” by “greedy psychopaths” is disingenuous, because most of them are owned by numerous small investors. . . and if you own a mutual insurance policy, you likely own part of an oil company.

    1. Anthropogenic climate change theories are based on temperature records that start in 1880 (about when The Little Ice Age ended), that weren’t exactly accurate, along with a bunch of manipulated “global average” numbers that measure/prove nothing. Ice core data goes back 20,000 years. These show that there were several periods in the last 10,000 years with global temperatures significantly above temperatures today. Note: there were no cars or factories during any of these periods.

      The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

      Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

      Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. — The Associated Press, November 2, 1922

      1. As 2014-2016 already knows because I posted a rebuttal to this, the 1922 article is true.

        But it described a local event and nothing like the temperatures we have today. Google “warm 1922” and follow up on sources to verify.

        2014-2016 is blatantly dishonest for continuing to post known crap.

    1. The anti-global warming crowd predicted that warming had peaked in 1998. They still try and say that.

      The scientists stated the evidence was that warming was going to continue.

      Since then we continue to set new record highs including both 2014 and now 2015.

      The only place left for anti-GW morons is to claim all the data is faked without producing any of their own.

      1. You keep holding onto your “belief” like it means something.

        The point of science is not to convince people who don’t want to change their beliefs. Its to inform those who prefer to think in terms of discovery and verification, not “belief”.

      2. Humans have only been around for about 50,000 years or so, right? So what’s your point? Why do you think 110,000 years is relevant? Are you saying the planet changes over very long periods of time, so when we see it change over a short period of time we should not worry about it?

        We are talking about humans altering the chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans in about 100 years or so. Don’t you think the relevant time frame is important to frame correctly?

  4. Even if climate change is nothing to do with man, pollution clearly is, as a species the things we’re doing that are resulting in climate change (or not depending on your persuasion) go hand in hand with smog, with respiratory problems, with the seas being filled with deadly plastics and other pollutants. We should want businesses to do something about it purely for our own immediate benefit. Climate change is irrelevant in so much as there are other reasons we should want things to be cleaner.

    1. Pollution is different from CO2 emissions. CO2 is plant food, and critical for life on Earth and in our oceans. Take a look at Los Angeles, apparently they have fixed their smog problem, and improved their air quality. Yet, they are still driving cars. You – are still driving a car, and burning fossil fuels. And let’s not get on the electric cars thingy. That electricity also comes from fossil fuels.

      1. I know they’re different, but business as a whole produce both pollution and co2, cleaning up industry will to some extent reduce both. There are still horrible things coming out of cars aside from the CO2 being produced. My point is that we should as a species want to reduce our footprint on the planet, if only from an aesthetic point of view.

      2. CO2 is not plant food. It is, however, used in photosynthesis. Just because there is more CO2 does not mean plants will “eat it” and become the equivalent of force-fed foie gras.

        But CO2 is really good at trapping heat in the atmosphere, which is why it is called a greenhouse gas. Too much of it makes the atmosphere warm. And that is exactly the point. A warm atmosphere makes the oceans warm, too. Plus, about 1/3 of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.

        You talk as if CO2 is harmless, and there is no such thing as too much. But this is not true.

  5. Unlike the “hoax” crowd, who take their cues from the Koch Brothers, Apple is simply using its critical intelligence to recognize that the future of business is building out technologies to foster a sustainable planet. Germany as a country recognized this back in the 80s, and today they produce enough renewable energy to cover all their residential housing needs. The renewable technology industry is dominated by German know-how, it’s a multi-billion dollar high-tech sector, with millions of German jobs relating to sustainable industries being supported. Remember Reagan? He did a great job killing the American renewable resource industry, and Germany proceeded to fill the void.

    The “hoax” folks should stop listening to the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and the other plutocrats, and instead follow the companies that are using their intelligence to become world players. Oil is dead, as Apple resoundingly demonstrated by sweeping past Exxon as the world’s most valuable company.

      1. Who’s saying oil is dead? Before oil we burned wood. Wood’s not dead either, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be striving for something better and cleaner. And it’s pretty fracking easy to go ‘off the grid’ with a few solar panels and a battery, so what’s your point?

        1. How do you produce those items to go off the grid?
          And the point is, Renaldo said oil is dead, not me.
          He’s wrong.

          I also never said we shouldn’t strive for any new tech, as long as it’s not through a Sham/Scam political slush fund.

        1. So, if I’m an idiot, and you can’t argue the valid points I’ve made, where does that leave you?

          (might skip the Zest tonight, you’ll need a full bar of Lava to get all THAT mud off your face….)

      2. My brother is a consultant in the International Electric Utility industry. The technical word for fossil fuels used in the industry is “transition fuels”: no one expects fossil fuels to be around indefinitely. Sorry to burst your bubble. No, it won’t happen this year or next. But it is coming.

        1. No, I’m sorry to burst YOUR bubble because I didn’t say fossil fuels would never run out.

          Also, you are most likely referring to coal, which is nowhere near exhausted but is being phased out by the government for use in power plants.

          There is also plenty of natural gas to fire steam turbines for decades, which is probably how long it will be before anything remotely as plentiful can be utilized to power the grid.

          Sorry if any of the soap got in your eyes….

            1. At what point was I hostile to you?

              I mean, you claimed I said something I didn’t, so all I did was correct you. Is that hostile? I even apologized twice.

            2. You asked. First, I did not claim you said something you did not. But you took offense to it, anyway. I simply pointed out something that you did not say at all. You said oil is not dead. I basically said no, but it is dying.

              Second, you call “Sorry if any of the soap got in your eyes” an apology? It is more of a sarcastic taunt.

              Enough said. Have a nice evening.

            3. Do you have any clue on how to converse?
              “no one expects fossil fuels to be around indefinitely. Sorry to burst your bubble” is an implication of disappointment due to an unexpected turn of events.

              Is this some new college debate style, ignore what you type and then project your feeling onto others?

              Good God, kid. You do realize you are arguing about an argument you started, right…?

            4. I was “arguing one of the valid points you made”, as you put it above. But it looks like you never really meant that…

              You write as if oil is the inevitable, the best, the only source of energy. I simply pointed out that oil is a dying fuel source, and there is no reason not to support alternative fuels, as Apple is doing.

            5. No, I don’t write that oil was inevitable or the best. Your only saw what you wanted. I was refuting someone who claimed oil was dead. Petroleum will be used for at least the next 50 years if not longer, even if fission power is harnessed, or home fuel cells become practical and hydrogen or electric cars become affordable. Even if all that happens, oil will still be produced for plastics among other things.

              Again, a recap;
              Renaldo said oil is dead, oil companies are plutocrats.

              I said oil id not dead, you can’t do anything without using something affected by oil, in production or transportation.

              Wyte asked me who said oil is dead (I guess he couldn’t read Renaldo’s post) then said anyone could go off the grid and not use oil, which is the crux of low- information people. Oil is used in more than just power and transportation.

              I asked Wyte how those items could be produced, shipped, and also what is used as a backup (generator).

              Omalansky offered his usual trite.

              You interjected and implied the phasing out of oil would burst my bubble. Where did you get that? Just because it is finite?

              Here’s a clue…even solar power is finite. The point I made to you is the changeover planned for power is being made not because of lack of fuel but because of regulations. Fine.

              Then your butt started hurting and had to find something to argue about.

              Here’s the deal-since I was 10 years old I have been hearing that we only have 5-10 years of fuel left. That was 43 years ago and we keep finding more. Does that mean we need to stop looking for cheaper and cleaner alternatives? No. Does it mean we should still use cheap power to help feed, heat and cool people? YES.

              Move on. Your argument is pointless and based on a misunderstanding of plainly written text.

            6. We have ample supplies of fossil fuel. But we are harming the planet’s ecosystems by burning them. Yes, they will be around for a long time. But many are curtailing their use of fossil fuels even now. At least, those of us who care about the environment are.

              Global peak oil consumption occurred a few years ago. That means worldwide oil demand is declining. Despite a growth in economic activity and population.

              Hybrid gas-electric cars get 30 to 50 mpg. Plug-in hybrid gas-electric cars get up to 100 mpg (equivalent). Pure plug-in electric cars will get even higher equivalent mpg. (Plus, many millennials don’t even want to buy a car.) For every one of these fuel-efficient cars on the road, the fuel savings they achieve are enough to power 2 or 3 or 4 “traditional” cars that get 22 mpg. There are a lot of these fuel-efficient cars on the road and more all the time.

              Solar photovoltaic cells are cheap and feasible. It is possible to design houses that are net-zero carbon producers. Here is an interesting article from the New Yorker about what the electric utility company in Burlington, Vermont is doing.

              The state of Hawaii has announced plans to meet 40% of its electric demand in 2030 (that is just 15 years from now) using renewable energy sources compared with 9% today.

              You are splitting hairs. Someone said oil is dead. As in a sports team, or investment, or politician that is “dead”, meaning it has no future. But you chose to take the statement literally so you could whinge about idiots who dare to say anything negative about FABULOUS OIL. (Talk about misunderstanding clearly written text! Or maybe you have Asperger’s or something and cannot detect anything other than extreme literal meaning? Except oil is inanimate, so how could it possibly be dead in the first place? Go figure…) Oil is dead in that its future is bleak. I would not put all your money in oil companies. Put it in Apple.

              And one more thing: you do not need to worry about fossil fuel running out. But you do need to worry about how burning fossil fuels is causing irremediable damage to the atmosphere, oceans, and ecosystems. You are invited to join the social network of the many people who are trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Like Apple.

            7. You keep moving the goalpost to change the subject.
              Also, your man-crush has become annoying.

              And since you have the entire internet to play on, I’m sure there are others who like to converse on your level.

              Please try to find one in your age/IQ range, as I have known all your points years before you were even born and have never said anything to the contrary. You are simply creating a straw man to throw darts at. Move on.

              Another thing. I have a step-grandson with Asperger’s, which is another thing you need not explain to me.


            8. I believe my posts were in direct response to things you said. Or unsaid, which was relevant to add. (Eg, My preceding comment was in direct response to your “Here is the deal” statement in your last post.) I thought this was the point of forums like this one. Otherwise, we can all just write essays to ourselves.

              There is no “man crush”, no “straw man” strategy, no attempt to rattle your cage for fun. The intention was discourse. On an issue many feel passionate about. And which is important for us to get right if we are to, hopefully, leave the planet in healthy shape for our children and all future generations.

              Dunno how old you think I am or why. But I am probably older than you think. I have been passionate about energy conservation and environmental stewardship since my youth. I was a young adult during the oil embargoes and deep recessions of 1973 and 1979.

              Let’s try to make the world a better place. I think we all want that.

              It is why I laud Apple’s efforts to produce renewable energy. It reduces their own (probably huge) carbon footprint, and sets an example for others. I see no downside.


    1. Ohhh, those evil Koch brothers. I laugh every time I see that. We don’t take our cues from the Koch brothers or the oil companies. None of them are sending us checks.

      The difference is that climate change proponents are staring at computer models that spell doom and gloom (inaccurately) and the skeptics are looking at empirical, observational data.

      You can choose where true science comes from.

      1. Hey, David.

        I guess he doesn’t know about the $1mil we gave to our lap dog David Vitter’s campaign. In return he works hard for us, e.g. to eliminate subsidies to solar while retaining FOURTEEN TIMES as much taxpayer money in subsidies to oil… the most profitable businesses on the planet (besides that damn Apple).

        Isn’t it just cute about how the peasants defend us so vehemently – and so ignorantly?

        1. I laugh when allowing someone to keep their own money is called a “subsidy.”
          These are not subsidies. Subsidies are when you give other peoples’ money to something. The solar industry cannot live without subsidies. i.e. the solar industry cannot live without taking other peoples’ money.
          I’m tired of crony capitalism and all of this money being wasted on “green” boondoggles.
          There are 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the USA.

    2. “Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years as the country advances a plan to exit nuclear energy by 2022.
      In Germany, “New coal plants with about 5,300 megawatts of capacity will start generating power this year, the Muenster-based IWR renewable energy institute said in an e-mailed statement today, citing data from the German regulator. About 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to come offline, it said.”

  6. For heavens sake, no one can stop climate change. The climate has been changing since the beginning of the universe, and it will never stop changing until the Sun dies. Instead, our planet has been ‘greening’ as CO2 has boosted agriculture and the health of our forests, which in turn, enhance biodiversity and produce more oxygen. If there is a problem with agriculture, it lies with the loss of fertility of our soils due to overproduction, mineral depletion, and erosion, not with CO2.

    Mainly, we all know by now, despite all the BS out there, that there really has not been any significant warming in the past decade – according to factual data from NASA readings; even in spite of all those silly computer models that never seem to come true. Instead, Antartica is gaining more ice than the north pole is losing. And here has not been any increase in the number of storms and their strengths, over the last decade and longer.

    According to Al Gore, the lying doofus, Florida and Manhattan should be underwater by now. Thank God we did not listen to his drivel and his stupid movie scam from ten years ago. Yet he still made a killing; the millions of dollars that he’s made from this scam should be confiscated. But they will never stop until they can tax all they want and control the way we live.

    The truth is that global warming and global cooling have been happening cyclically, and on their own, over thousands of years – without any input, or assistance, from human CO2 emissions. What is true is that is has been much warmer before, during the time of the Romans and the Egyptians, that we can tell. Heck, it was warmer in the thirties. And we are still here.

    1. Have you ever heard of “noise vs signal analysis”? It is like hearing a radio signal clearly through a lot of background static. It is important to distinguish between the background “noise” and the “signal” of interest.

      You are referring to background noise — the normal variation in the earth’s weather. But the real issue of interest is to what extent humans are contributing to the background noise: this is the “signal” of interest.

  7. Apple’s supernormal profits and scale allows it to do different things that most businesses cannot. Most businesses cannot afford to build solar or wind farms and negotiate the energy credits from the local utility to help pay for the investment. Green renewable options aren’t economically viable (and in some cases, physically impossible).

    However, businesses can add extra insulation, plug air leaks, replace old AC and furnaces to reduce our energy footprint and reduce pollution. If businesses reduced energy usage by 5%, that would be a huge savings.

  8. Humana just raised my families health insurance cost $170 per month plus the deductible an additional $700, all after a $200 per month premium increase last year.
    And you folks think i should focus on climate change???

    1. Sad and true. My sympathies but my household is affected too.

      Too many climate change, ne. global warming, activists have become completely disconnected from the every day realities that effect the poor and middle classes the world over. If they showed that they cared more perhaps they might get a more sympathetic ear. But some of them are a scary lot who fit into the “do what you’re told – we know better” crowd.

      1. Yehhh. If only the activists against chemicals in food, lead in gasoline, nuclear bomb testing in Nevada, tobacco, fracking and climate change could express things in a more caring manner (like the CEOs of those companies)… then you’d listen to how tobacco is killing you, and so on and so on…

      2. Yeh, JW. Specious. If I screaming at you that a car as heading right at you, please don’t be concerned about how nicely I’m saying it, or whether I’m holding my little finger “just so”. Just pay attention to whether it’s true or not.

    2. Yes. And stop feeling sorry for yourself while you are at it. Instead, why don’t you think about what you can do for yourself, future generations, and the planet?

      How many kids you got? That was _your_ choice.
      Where do you Iive? That was _your_ choice.
      What kind of cars do you drive and what kind of mileage do they get? Maybe you should’ve bought smaller and/or more fuel-efficient vehicles? (And save on purchase price, maintenance, and insurance.) Don’t forget: these were _your_ choices.
      Have you replaced your incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs yet? This is your choice.
      I could go on, but I won’t. Hopefully you get my point.

      Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Change is the only constant. You will figure it out.

      But there is no reason not to think about climate change at the same time.

Reader Feedback

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