Apple selling $1 billion debt for projects to fight global warming

“Apple Inc., which issued the biggest green bond ever sold by a U.S. corporation last year to finance projects fighting global warming, is doing it again,” Alex Webb reports for Bloomberg.

“On Tuesday, the iPhone maker issued a $1 billion green bond to fund renewable energy generation. It builds on $1.5 billion worth of bonds the Cupertino, California-based company sold a year ago to further its goal of running 100 percent of its operations on renewable energy,” Webb reports. “The bonds, maturing in 2027, will yield 95 to 100 basis points more than Treasuries, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be named because the deal is private. They are expected to be rated Aa1, the person said. The sale was arranged by Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.”

“Its latest bond comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, an international pact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions signed by almost 200 countries,” Webb reports. “Apple said it plans to use the proceeds to finance projects involving renewable energy resources and energy efficiency, among other things… Even with cash and equivalents totaling $257 billion, Apple has issued debt totaling $99 billion to fund stock buybacks and dividends, because most of that money is held outside the U.S. and would be subject to a 35 percent corporate income tax if it were repatriated.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s Environment – Climate Change website states:

We mapped our carbon footprint, and we’re working to eliminate it.

When we measure our carbon footprint, we include hundreds of suppliers, millions of customers, and hundreds of millions of devices. And we’re always looking for ways to make the biggest difference in five major areas: manufacturing, product use, facilities, transportation, and recycling.
To reduce our carbon footprint, we design each generation of our products to be as energy efficient as possible. We’re sourcing lower-carbon materials to make our devices, we’re partnering with suppliers to add clean energy to their facilities, and we produce and procure clean, renewable energy for 96 percent of the electricity used at our global facilities.

Our comprehensive 2016 carbon footprint: 29,500,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

More info here.

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook slams President Trump’s decision to withdraw from climate deal; says it’s ‘wrong for our planet’ – June 1, 2017
Despite pleas from Apple CEO Tim Cook and others, President Trump pulls out of Paris Agreement – June 1, 2017
Apple signs on to full page ‘open letter’ ad urging President Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement on climate change – June 1, 2017
Apple CEO Cook calls President Trump as Elon Musk threatens to quit White House advisory councils over Paris decision – May 31, 2017
President Trump leaning toward exiting Paris climate change agreement despite Apple, others urging U.S. to remain in deal – May 31, 2017
Apple to stick with environmental pledges despite President Trump’s gutting of Obama’s climate change orders – March 30, 2017
Greenpeace: Apple again the world’s most environmentally friendly tech company – January 10, 2017

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz,” “Dan K.,” and “Judge Bork” for the heads up.]

81 Comments

  1. Tim Cook would have just as much a chance if he decided to fight the sun itself. Less pollution is great. It’s also good for business (Apple “cares”), so it’s not a total waste of resources, but to spend billions to fight something that nobody knows for how much man is responsible and for how much nature is responsible is just foolishness.

    Cook is either a SJW fool who’s been hoodwinked by the globalist redistributionists and/or he’s one of them himself.

    1. I can’t find my high school chemistry textbook from 1965, but the basic facts haven’t changed since then:

      1. Burning any carbon-based fuel releases heat as one carbon atom in the fuel bonds to two oxygen atoms from the air to form one molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2). Because oxygen atoms weigh more than carbon, completely burning one pound of carbon generates 3.66 pounds of CO2. At room temperature and sea level pressure, each pound of CO2 will occupy 0.24 cubic meters or 64 U.S. gallons, enough to fill two bathtubs.

      2. So, a U.S. short ton (2000 pounds) of CO2 will take up 480 cubic meters; visualize a cube 25 feet on each side. The proportion of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere is currently 400 parts per million, so diluting that ton of CO2 to standard air quality would require mixing it with 2499 identical 25-foot cubes containing a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. In practice, of course, the air available for dilution already has 400 parts per million of CO2, so the extra ton would raise the CO2 content.

      3. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the use of fossil fuels was quite limited, so natural carbon circulated in a closed cycle. Green plants consumed CO2 and turned it into carbohydrates, releasing oxygen in the process. When the plants decayed (or burned in a fireplace or forest fire, or were eaten by an animal) the carbon recombined with oxygen to form CO2 and close the cycle. While there were slow drifts in CO2 levels, the cycle generally maintained equilibrium. Like any other balancing act, this one was vulnerable to outside disturbance.

      4. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, there have been two new factors: (a) human population growth and other processes have caused deforestation and desertification. This has reduced the number of green plants available to convert CO2 back into carbohydrates and oxygen, and (b) humans have introduced new carbon into the atmospheric system by extracting coal, petroleum, and natural gas that had been buried for a hundred million years or more. When those fossil fuels are burned, there aren’t enough plants available to quickly convert all the excess CO2 back into oxygen and carbohydrates. The equilibrium is disturbed, and CO2 levels rise far faster than would be possible without human intervention.

      5. The levels of new carbon being added to the system are quite significant. Last year, humans burned 8000 million tons of coal, which is mostly carbon, generating 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide—12,000 cubic kilometers of pure CO2 if it were confined at standard temperature and pressure. In practice of course, it mixes with the ambient air, raising its CO2 content year after year. So do the carbon emissions from burning gasoline (which is about 85% carbon) and other petroleum or natural gas-based fuels.

      6. Some of the excess CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, raising their acidity and bleaching coral reefs among other things, but most of it stays in the air. That isn’t just a guess or an unproven theory; all the actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 150 years have shown just the sort of unprecedentedly rapid rise that one would expect. Roughly a third of all the CO2 in the air today is from fossil fuel stack gas that the existing stock of green plants has not consumed.

      7. As my 1965 high school textbook also explained, every gas has a characteristic energy absorption spectrum. There are some frequencies of light and other electromagnetic energy that will be transmitted, while others are absorbed. As it happens, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon are relatively transparent both to the frequencies coming in from the hot sun and to the frequencies being radiated out from the warm earth. Since the energy balance is equal, the system will remain in equilibrium at a roughly constant temperature. However, other gasses, notably water vapor, methane, and CO2, allow more heat to come in than they allow to go out, like the glass in a greenhouse. As the level of “greenhouse gas” rises, so too does the temperature at which the earth-sea-atmosphere system reaches equilibrium. None of this involves conjecture; these are all proven and observed properties of nature, well known since the 1880s.

      8. The rate of this inevitable rise is very hard to predict. For just one example, increased temperatures mean increased evaporation, which means both higher levels of water vapor tending to trap heat and more clouds reflecting energy from the sun. Which process is going to be dominant? If it is additional trapped heat, the whole system could run away in a feedback loop that raises temperatures very quickly. If it is clouds, the negative feedback could slow the heating process once it rises to a new equilibrium point, unless still more CO2 disturbs the equilibrium again. There are many more complications (some known and others unknown) that a complex computer model would have to handle precisely to make an exact prediction of the rate of global warming and consequent climate change. However, the bare fact that higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures is simply not subject to rational debate.

      9. Whatever other causes may contribute to or mitigate the global temperature, the rising CO2 levels necessarily contribute upward pressure. Whatever else may be happening, it is a scientific certainty that—all other things being equal—a planet with a higher CO2 level will be warmer than the same planet with a lower level. It is no surprise that the observed temperature of the earth-sea-atmosphere system is rising. Again, no reasonable person questions the fact of the rise, even if they dispute its cause and the rate at which it is happening. Any observant layman older than 40 or so will have noticed the changes in local flora and fauna over his lifetime… even if he isn’t an Alaskan villager who has the permafrost melting from under him. The rate of change is unprecedented in the geologic record, which argues against a nonhuman cause.

      10. I suppose someone might reasonably dispute the consensus of at least 19 out of 20 scholars who have a recognized publication history in climate science. They have concluded that human activity is currently causing about 33 times more heating than all nonhuman causes combined. Under the rule of Occam’s Razor, that is the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation of the known data; the climate deniers have not agreed on any single alternative. Even if you don’t believe the majority, though, you should recognize that limiting carbon emissions will limit the amount of heating to some extent. Even if there were some unknown outside force causing most of the observed heating, manmade CO2 is still a contributor. To say otherwise is to deny high school physical science.

      11. It is therefore in our national interest, to say nothing of the broader world community, to get a handle on the situation before it reaches a tipping point that brings catastrophic changes very fast. Pretending that the issue will go away is like ignoring the symptoms of a heart attack. Increasing the risks for millions of Americans who live along our seacoasts and rivers to save a few thousand jobs mining Appalachia is incredibly short-sighted. (The oil industry is safe in any case, since its product can be used more profitably as a chemical feedstock than as fuel. That’s why ExxonMobile and most big petrocompanies—as distinct from regional drillers—supported the Paris Accords.)

      12. This is not a matter of “Pittsburgh over Paris,” since the mayor of Pittsburgh tells us that there are already more of his constituents employed in green energy than have anything to do with coal. Hampering the renewables industry would cost his region, and our nation, more jobs than it would provide. Arguments to the contrary are no more than what a Republican former president called “voodoo economics.” The denialist-financed studies cited by the President to argue against the Accords ignore all the data that does not support their conclusions.

      Again, none of this is complicated or requires any scientific knowledge beyond high school chemistry. The facts are clear, even if some politicians choose to put their self-interest ahead of the public’s right to prosper… or even to survive.

      1. You call it “alarmism,” but many others call it pragmatism. You appear to espouse a do-nothing or, at least, a do-very-little philosophy. In my book, the likelihood/consequence situation with human-influenced climate chan warrants a strong response. The renewable technology already exists and is economically competitive – logic dictates that we should focus future investments in renewable energy options rather than fossil fuels, especially coal.

        Your engineering solutions fall short. Move people…sea walls…drinking water…these would partially address individual symptoms while ignoring the root cause. What happens as the growing human population faces reductions in arable land and farm production? Ocean products are a key aspect of the food chain for many human beings around the world. How will your engineers address coral reef bleaching, reductions in fish populations, etc.?

        While I agree that labeling a group can be counterproductive, there is indeed a subgroup that has long denied any meaningful anthropomorphic impact on global climate. They ignore valid evidence and twist data to suit their agenda or generate false data outright. In addition, they seek to cast doubt on legitimate data and concerns, occasionally giving a bit of ground in order to regroup and continue delaying progress. One of their key motivations is money – defend the short term profits at all costs. They appear to have no long term perspective.

    2. Re- First Whatever.
      What is your degree from a College or University in, or do you even have one?

      The very same Biostitutes and others using the same disinformation techniques have been peddling the Climate Change Denial Bullshit that most NeoConservatives have latched on to.

      Science does not have a political party, but science deniers do. The overwhelming consensus of Scientists (and no, your local TV weather guy with a BS in Meteorology does not qualify) is that our climate is changing, is warming, is carrying extra water vapor compared to the historical averages and is at least in part caused by human activity.

      That said, acting to mitigate the human inputs that are impacting the earth negatively is a wise thing to do and is in no way harmful to humanity. Not acting to mitigate those same human inputs could well spell the needless death and suffering of Billions of people. Which decision is the moral one to make?

      Next, pollution is waste and more efficient systems mean greater returns over time to the economy. For example, expelling waste heat into the atmosphere is missing the opportunity to use the heat to produce electricity or steam heat for buildings- a process known as co-generation. Not being green is being fiscally stupid and not attending to the fiduciary responsibilities of management to shareholders.

      Fred Smith, founder and President, Chairman and CEO of Federal Express – a former Marine fighter pilot and Conservative by all accounts has put in place green initiatives all over the company. Here is a link to the details:
      http://www.fedex.com/re/about/sustainability/environment.html

      “FedEx is committed to connecting the world in responsible and resourceful ways. Our role is to expand the world’s ability to connect more efficiently, while minimizing our impact on the environment.

      FedEx has set ambitious goals to reduce our footprint where we have the greatest environmental impact:
      Reduce aircraft emissions 30 percent by 2020 on an emissions per available-ton-mile basis

      Increase FedEx Express vehicle efficiency by 30 percent by 2020

      Get 30 percent of our jet fuel from alternative fuels by 2030

      Expand on-site renewable energy generation and procurement of renewable energy credits”

      That is from a job creating, entrepreneur Conservative. He has created over 400,000 jobs directly through his company. If Fred Smith has no problem with Green Technology for FedEx, what is your gripe with Cook’s for Apple?

      1. The same religious fanatic extremists who were peddling the Global Warming scare, in the 1970s promoting the Global Cooling Scare and have since rebranded it the Climate Change Scare, since they want to be covered no matter what weather trends occur. These people are scientifically illiterate and thus use words like “denier” which more are common in totalitarian political systems that use such terms to justify executions of those who won’t submit.

        The arrogance of this group of illiterate morons who think they have the power to fine tune the earths temperature, with “scientific models” that don’t take into account the sun is stunning. These are people who are so worked up about this threat that they use carbon fuels every day, they fly in jet airplanes, they order products delivered by diesel trucks, they fart producing their own carbon AirPrint. And then they want to purchase “credits” to justify their use of the evil carbon. By the way, these people are made of carbon and all life requires carbon, but these people are too stupid to take in these simple facts. And it is all because they reject God, which means they think they are God. But, thank God they are not. They are just a source of proof of the folly of man.

        1. While there were some who proposed the cooling you refer to, it never gained widespread acceptance among scientists and was posited at a time when the data available was nowhere as good or broad compared to what has been available since. Further, evolving thought based upon better information is the way science works.

          I will give you an example- Bohr’s shell theory of atoms is wrong but was accepted at one time. As knowledge increased, the shell theory was shelved excepting as a conceptual teaching tool for school children. That does not mean Dr Bohr was stupid, or evil or a bad scientist or that he had some hidden agenda. When the knowledge base improved the scientific consensus changed. The same is true of Climate Science.

          I understand many people have a hard time accepting human activity can have such an impact, but the Earth is the same size and has the same capacities now with 7.5 Billion people as when it had only about 1 Billion in 1800. Obviously 7.5 times a many humans living a much more technologically advanced life on the planet have a vastly more significant impact on nature.

          Put down your Sunday School lesson and use your brain fro something other than a hat rack.

          1. Have you given up cars and airplanes? Do you refuse to use anything made of plastic? Do you refuse to use goods made using methods developed since the Industrial Age, which is when Man became Evil? Do you refuse to use computers and mobile phones, which are part of the human progress that requires power from Industrial Age sources?

            If you have rejected all these things, then you are serious. And you are free to that because it would make sense given your beliefs. I don’t believe any of this crap but instead believe that humanity is the great benefactor of the amazing advances man has made since the Industrial Age, including computers, automobiles, air travel, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc. These are good things. They are in no way evil. Oil is a boon to humanity and I am glad God provided it to us precisely so we could use it.

            1. Yes, we are giving up on the most polluting machines and replacing them with sustainable technologies. It takes time but you are a laggard, you old stick in the mud. Don’t be accusing others of not caring, because the majority of us do.

            2. I will give up my car when good public transport is available.
              When I lived in Germany where great public transit was available I used the S-Bahn and U-Bahn systems for almost all my routine travel (in and around Stuttgart, where I lived). The DB Trains served well for intercity travel.
              Few American cities have good public transit.
              Here is a map of the VVS (just one system) of public transit in Stuttgart. http://www.vvs.de/download/Verbund_Schienennetz.pdf

            3. God gave you a brain, too, kent. Try using it. God created the entire Earth, correct? Why are you trashing God’s creation?

              Your arguments make no sense. You clearly favor a strongly conservative agenda, but I have never heard you giving up everything that benefited you that conflicted with that agenda.

      2. It is still cooler than it was millions of years ago. I am not denying the fact the climate is changing…but, to spend trillions of dollars on a program for which there is no clear consensus on how, or if it is even possible for us to control the climate seems pure folly. Call me skeptical, but when governments promise to fix a problem by throwing money at it….usually means the taxpayer will be the one to suffer.

        1. Apple acting to adopt green business practices is not going to cost you a dime. The Solar Roofs and plants will keep Apple from having to buy electricity at fluctuating market rates. The Biogas powered fuel cells keep Dollars at home by replacing or offsetting expensive energy imported from overseas.

          1. Apple borrowed $1 billion to build energy sources because it wants to produce a cooler planet. The renewable energy sources require that utilities build out extra capacity so they can provide power when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. These renewable sources are not “reliable”. They are only preferred because they are politically correct. They make no sense from a cost perspective.

            1. Renewables can be stored by any number of means from mechanical to chemical. Audi is using wind and solar to produce eGas in Germany. The eGas can be used to power Fuel Cells that yield electricity and water.

            2. “The renewable energy sources require that utilities build out extra capacity so they can provide power when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining.”

              kent [sic], this is an absolute lie, and you know it.

              No utility has to build out EXTRA capacity in order to fill in for times when wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, or other renewable resource is not available. In point of fact they can build LESS capacity and only need to build for surge capacity.

            3. No. I don’t believe you comprehend the situation.

              Hawaii is the perfect example:

              1) Home owners put solar panels on their roofs, pump e- into the power grid.

              2) The power company responds by telling the solar source homes to keep the e- to themselves. They don’t want it as it provides too much power during the day and provides no power at night. Question their logic, please. I consider them to be Luddites.

              3) So home owners with solar panels DIY and install systems to STORE their excess e- power for THEIR night time. The power is stored in batteries.

              4) The battery demand goes up. Manufacturing revs up. The price for batteries gradually drops. It’s a similar price history to HDTVs.

              The fact is that STORAGE is the BUFFER. It’s a requirement of most renewable energy systems (water power is an exception) specifically because they do NOT generate power all day long. The biggest deficit is at night when the demand for power is the greatest. Therefore, a BUFFER is required in order to provide power during the low generation and high demand periods.

              I personally prefer H2 (hydrogen) generation used in hydrogen fuel cells. It’s incredibly easy to make at anyone’s home at any time of day. The problem to overcome is: How to store it safely. It’s explosive.

        2. sherm66: In this case, it isn’t the government spending trillions of dollars on something unproven. It is Apple spending about a billion on technologies that can be demonstrated as cost-effective. More efficient energy production and consumption doesn’t just reduce the company’s carbon footprint.

          It substantially reduces the amount it has to spend on energy. Helping its suppliers transition to renewable energy will cut their expenses and thus the prices they charge Apple. The upfront expense for going green will be paid back (like the loans) in the long run.

            1. Yes, it will make you more money. Apple will have stable predictable energy and we all will be healthier than if new energy was filthy coal.

              How do you not understand this? When you buy a new computer to replace your worn out one, do you try really hard to get an old design that is less capable and less efficient, or do you test drive the latest models to find the newest most efficient one that works for you? Why is that not the way power plants and vehicles should be?

        3. Hey Sherm, thanks for your thoughts and our planet is definitely cooler now than millions of years ago.
          However back then the dominant lifeforms were cold blooded reptilian based animals rather than warm blooded mammals.
          Remembering that modern humans are at best only 2-300,000 years old as a species and we, along with the plants and animals we eat to survive have evolved to thrive in our current, milder climates and even in extremely cold ones.
          So it is in our own interests to work to produce our energy and products as efficiently as we can so as not to place at risk our future generations and consign them to living a more precarious and expensive life.

        4. sherm66 — It was even hotter 4.5 billion years ago …at the time of the Big Bang. So what? What is your point? And besides, humans were not even around 1 million years ago. I will not call you skeptical. I will call you something else…

          1. Good try, but bad info. 4.5B years is roughly the age of our planet/solar system. 13.7B years is the approximate age of our universe according to the best available data.

            To ninetimesoutoften: I doubt that I can influence your mind. But we live now, not millions of years ago, and your body needs to regulate to approximately 98.6 degF plus or minus a couple of degrees. Some creatures are less sensitive to ambient temperature than humans, and others are more sensitive. But think of Summer’s creeping towards highs of 104 degF rather than the upper 90s. Consider major droughts affecting food supplies. Consider the spread of tropical diseases. Consider the mass migration of people desperate for food and water. Then tell me why a little prudence now is such a bad thing.

            If we are wrong, then you have cleaner air and water and are out some bucks. If you are wrong, then our descendants are screwed.

            1. Hey Think either you were replying to someone else by mistake or I failed to get my point across. We are in agreement and I was also arguing that we have evolved to live in the now and so have all the other organisms we depend upon for life so the temps millions of years ago are irrelevant and indeed dangerous to modern human beings.

    3. Oh look, there was a dip in atmospheric CO2 millions of years ago, therefore man does not have to be responsible for his actions.

      The nutters are not the people who are trying to be sustainable. It is self-absorbed people like First and Botty who have convinced themselves that they are always correct when they spread their religion of greed, then have the gall to accuse green businesses that capitalism is not for them. How dare anyone suggest that we can have economic growth and clean air, how can that possibly be done!!!! Stupid old fools you are.

      To those who say “follow the money”, I suggest you heed your own words and track the oil industry. On a level playing field, already renewables are the preferred power sources in many parts of the world.

      By the way, since you claim that there are no costs to climate change, then why is Manhattan spending so much to reinforce its sea wall? Apparently people smarter than you realize that there are societal costs to man’s short-term greed. Fossil fuel energy producers have gotten a free ride for a century as everyone ignored the pollution that we all pay for. Now scientific invention has brought us alternatives to correct a real manmade problem and dickheads like First and Botty are in immediate protest.

      So i ask you, when has First or Botty ever indicated that they care about the long term well being of you and your family? With their track record of partisan hackery, what makes you think they understand or care about long term consequences of anything?

      Think long term friends. Your children and mine will have to fix what we break.

      1. Pasted in the wrong graphic above. Rise in plant life has raised oxygen levels, which sustained carbon life forms and banked millions of years of fossil fuels which man has essentially burned half through in less than two centuries.

        So what happens when man burns through millions of years of carbon based fuel?

        This:

      2. Green energy programs currently are a type of corporate welfare. When the government subsidies run out most of these companies go tits up. If it is REALLY sustainable then it should be able to exist on it’s own. It isn’t working here in Ontario (as seen in our electricity bills)!

        The reality of renewable energy is far short of your optimistic opinion.

    4. Let’s just say, for the sake of discussion, that man has NOTHING to do with global warming. Does that make it OK to ignore it and accept the consequences because it’s a natural phenomenon, if we have the technology to mitigate it’s effects ? I know that’s a big IF, but you seem to be implying that since man may have not been totally responsible for a warming planet, we should just do nothing and let the world heat up and live with consequences… if we can.

      1. There is something called cost-effectiveness that Dem/Lib/Progs never seem to understand, take into account or even care to consider.

        The Paris Agreement that Tim Cook and the rest of the SJW love(d) so much would have resulted in over $2.5 trillion in lost U.S. GDP by 2035. The agreement would have cost Americans an extra $30,000 per family of four (in higher energy prices) and some 400,000 lost jobs (200,000 in manufacturing alone).

        ‎Since Obama signed the non-binding Paris Agreement without congressional approval, American taxpayers – WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTED DUE TO OBAMA’S UNILATERAL MOVE; i.e. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION – have forked over nearly $1 billion to a green energy slush fund that will be redistributed to most of the other 170 nations who have signed the pact.

        Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100.

        0.2 Celsius is not worth $2.5 trillion; $30,000 per family of four; 400,000 lost jobs.

        1. As you yourself frequently point out, you can find a study to prove almost anything.

          The people who wrote the study generally cited for the 0.2 degree number have stated that their conclusions have since been corrected upwards and are being quoted entirely out of context.

          The $2.5% loss in GDP study makes such contrafactual assumptions as: (1) There will be no costs from climate change to offset the savings from not trying to control it; (2) The U.S. will be the only country that heeds the agreement, placing it at a disadvantage against the 170 that will supposedly ignore it; (3) Without the agreement, the U.S. economy will grow at an annual rate approaching 4%.

          1. Exactly, just like all the Global Warming computer models can be tweaked to eliminate real cooling spells that occurred since the Industrial Age and also to explain long warming periods that occurred before man was doing anything. Yes, a leftist with a spreadsheet can do anything. Interesting what these models can do if you take the sun out of the equation. Does Apple think it can control the sun? Do you?

            1. I suspect that people are perfectly capable of doing both things, but they may not be interested in accuracy when it serves their own economic or political interest. That’s why I stuck just with the scientific facts in my long post near the top of this thread. I notice that nobody has questioned those.

            2. 1. You vastly overestimate the ability of humans and/or machines to accurately predict complex systems.

              2. “They may not be interested in accuracy when it serves their own economic or political interest.” As in: “Researchers” who manipulate climate data in order to continue/increase government funding for their “research.”

              3. Your so-called “scientific facts” are mostly based on estimates, not hard data. Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values. So, yes, I am questioning your so-called “scientific facts,” because they’re not.

              4. Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’ – February 5, 2017

              5. GIGO. If your data are bad, so are your conclusions and so are your proposed “fixes.”

            3. I numbered the paragraphs in my original post for ease of reference in case anybody wanted to prove me wrong. Which paragraph do you think embodies an estimate and not hard data? As I said up there, most of it is stuff I could have quoted from the high school chemistry textbook I was using in 1965.

              Those who have facts use them. When they don’t use them, it suggests they don’t have them.

        2. Wrong on so many levels. What a selfish tightwad. You argue that the USA should lose competitiveness in emerging energy tech because you think friendly competition is ineffective? Tell that to Olympians. You know, it just makes so much sense that the USA should stop competing because it costs money and there is no guarantees that new records can be set. Worse, the USA could lose and we can’t have that. Let’s not try to do something new and challenging. Let’s set the clock back a century in the USA while every other nation keeps working for sustainability! Yeah, let’s start producing Model T Fords again, those were great!

    5. Everybody knows that people who smoke can get lung cancer. I don’t see any doctors say, ‘Well since we can’t specify EXACTLY how much smoking contributes to you getting lung cancer as opposed to other factors, so puff away.’

      That’s not done because it’s stupid. Yet this exact argument is made by climate deniers as an excuse to continue to pollute the atmosphere.

      The truth is that regardless of how much man contributes, it’s a problem that needs to be solved ASAP. Simply sitting on your hands not only doesn’t solve the issue, it makes things worse because the longer you wait the less chance there is of stopping it.

      1. Well Mr. History, let me fill you in. In the 1970’s “scientists” were forecasting the demise of human existence owing to an impending ice age. What happened? Did it get any cooler even though auto, trucks, and industries were belching even more CO2 than today?

        WTF, Mr. History, WTF?

        1. Are you seriously arguing that the world population in 2017, which is almost twice the population in 1974 (7.5 billion vs. 3.9 billion), is producing less carbon dioxide?

          After that, why should we believe anything else you say?

        2. What a minority of scientists may have forecast in the 1970’s has little to do with what is the broad consensus today (based on far better and extensive data). And your argument is a complete non sequitur to my example.

          To expand on my analogy. If the doctor suggested that you quit smoking to avoid lung cancer (even thought the doctor couldn’t pinpoint exactly to what the degree smoking causes the cancer), and your response is that is: ‘well forty years ago some minority of doctors actually thought smoking was beneficial to people’s health so I don’t believe anything that modern medicine has to say on the topic.’

          The doctor may look sadly at the idiot patient in front of him and think to himself: “well I’ll see you in the morgue sooner rather than later.”

          The only problem is that your short-sighted decision doesn’t just harm YOUR health, but harms the health of the entire planet, which affects every one of us.

          Future generations will have the hindsight to look back and realize how short-sighted, self-serving and stupid some of our population are by helping to destroy the environment (largely steered by advocacy groups of the oil industry).

          Too bad you, and a few others, are too dense to realize the gravity of the situation and actively try to undermine progress in this area.

          Note that if your concern is that you don’t want to see the environmental movement turn into a boondoggle which wastes a lot of money and puts too much power and control into the hands of a few bureaucrats, then that’s valid and something that I agree should be closely monitored.

          But if your argument is that global warming is a hoax and any steps taken to address it should be undermined and crippled in favor of continuing to burn fossil fuels with no concern for how that impacts the future, then that’s just dumb.

    6. To paraphrase First Then Whatever:

      I won’t support federal funding for measuring man’s pollution impacts, nor money to clean up what we spoiled. Instead it seems way better to try to get people to shovel coal to heat their homes. Let’s ignore the obvious correlations and impacts of our short sighted actions and waste. As long as i am rich enough to move uptown, the rest of you just keep wallowing in superfund sites that will never be cleared by a republican administration because that would cost everyone some money. Money money money!!!!!!!!

      I got mine, future generations do not matter to me. Health and knowledge are not important, being rich and militaristic is the ticket to happiness.

      Nevertheless have you noticed that with all his political power, money, and the most bloated military in the world, he is still a miserable POS? So sad.

      Glad to see a corporate behemoth finally put some money back into making the world a better place. Most companies just do advertising greenwash with no follow through or concrete action.

    1. …once again:
      The Climate Change Fraud has two purposes:
      • The imposition of an unrepresented “carbon” tax to further finance global governance.
      • The further erosion of the economic might of the West, especially the United States.

      That is all.

      1. Dean Clark, cheapskate. The question is not whether costs will be incurred, the question is who will pay for them. Invariably assholes like you love to pass the tab to others.

    2. I thought you would approve of an American company making money. Sorry we misunderstood you.

      Now why do oil companies continue to have subsidies? Why are taxpayers funding the US military to babysit oil infrastructure? Why don’t oil companies pay 100% of spill cleanup?

  2. More God complex from Tim Cook. Maybe he could just have Apple engineers to use HomeKit to put a thermostat on the planet. Tim knows the “ideal” temperature and has a far better grip on what to do to manage global climate that the real God. Right?

  3. You tell ’em guys. All science is valid except for two particular areas:
    – Anything that says humans are increasing global temperatures.
    – Anything that says the earth is older than 6000 years.

    Luckily we have a bunch of oil billionaires and their friends who are setting things right on the first one.
    And a bunch of fanatics who think an iron age book which says the value of pi is 3 is THE authoritative source on how the universe works.

    1. You fail to comprehend. First, all science is not valid. The scientific process says that you propose a hypothesis, then you try repeatedly to prove it wrong. Climate Change science says, you propose a hypothesis that is politically correct, then proclaim anyone who even remotely challenges it a heretic. All solutions to climate change must be in the form of a funds transfers, i.e. redistribution of wealth.

  4. If we had greek mythology we would still be saying things like, “How dare he think that science will rule over Thor and Jupiter”.

    Thankfully those days are over and we grew up. Oh wait…..

  5. Democrats lie.

    For another example:

    This map shows how much of the United States could see zero or few Obamacare insurers selling health coverage next year

    All of those yellow and red spots? They aren’t good news for Obamacare.

    Federal health officials on Tuesday released a new map showing in full color how many counties in the United States could have zero or just one insurer selling Obamacare health plans in 2018.

    Large of swaths of yellow cover a number of Southern and Midwestern states, all of Alaska, and elsewhere indicating counties that are projected as of now to have just one insurer selling individual plans next year.

    As many as 1,200 counties, almost 40 percent of all counties nationwide, containing 2.4 million customers of Obamacare exchanges, are colored yellow.

    Another 47 counties strewn across Ohio, western Missouri and Washington are colored red. The red indicates that no insurer is expected to sell plans there in 2018.

    At least 35,000 current customers of the government-run insurance exchanges live in “red” counties.

    The map was released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for overseeing Obamacare. The map is based on intentions for next year revealed by insurers as of late last week.

    President Donald Trump, after a lunch with a group of Republican senators who soon hope to introduce a health-care reform bill, said “one in three counties will have only a single insurer.”

    “Obamacare has been broken, it’s been a broken promise,” Trump said.

    More here.

    1. The insurers pulling out of the individual market are not saying that ObamaCare failed. They are all saying that they can’t estimate their cost of doing business, and thus set their prices for 2018, when they have absolutely no idea how many of the subsidies available under ObamaCare are going away and what TrumpCare will look like. It is like the government asking a gas station to fix its retail prices for Regular Unleaded a year in advance while simultaneously promoting a volatile wholesale gasoline market.

      If you want to get companies back into the individual market, write a healthcare bill that can pass both houses of Congress and get a presidential signature… and do it very, very fast.

      1. The bill should open the country to competition across state lines and demand medical professionals clearly list PRICES for each and every service UPFRONT and then get out of the way and let real competition do what it does best.

        Unfortunately, nobody in D.C., including the President, has the balls to really fix what’s broken with the U.S. Health Insurance industry.

        Obviously the health insurance system in the United States of America is FUBAR and an unspeakably massive drag on the economy overall.

        The basic problem is that the prices of healthcare are not defined. They are elastic. What else do you buy without seeing the price upfront? Without knowing the hourly rate upfront? Or the cost of typical procedures? You go to a garage and it says on a board the labor cost per hour. It shows the cost of an oil change, brake services, a tune-up, etc. You go into Target and the price is on the product. You can compare that price with Amazon’s and Walfart’s and then decide where to buy. Not so with medical services, tests, and procedures.

        Ever wonder why a new doctor asks what your insurance plan is upfront? It’s not just to determine that you have insurance, it also determines how much you’ll pay. The prices change based on the insurance company/plan. Ever wonder why, when you have “good insurance,” the doctor’s office seems excited to hear it? Or how well you’re treated over others with lesser (read: less profitable) insurance companies/plans? They want to keep you happy. You’re a high-value patient. If you’ve ever gone from crappy insurance to good insurance or vice versa, you know what we mean.

        Until the medical costs are displayed upfront and everybody is charged that rate, regardless of their plan, this mess will continue. You can’t have real competition that drives down costs until the actual costs are clearly known by all parties and uniform per person regardless of their insurance or even lack thereof.MacDailyNews, March 7, 2017

        1. If you and President Trump think that will fix our national medical system, pass it into law. Until you do, the uncertainty that is driving insurers out of the market will continue.

          We’ll never know how wonderful TrumpCare might be until it becomes a law. We’ll never know how bad ObamaCare might ultimately have been if it had continued in effect instead of becoming a Dead Law Walking last November 8. The uncertainty of this twilight zone between the two regimes is literally going to kill people.

      1. Typical snowflake. Can’t handle the truth, tunes out instead, retreats to “safe space” with eyes shut and fingers in ears, chanting “la, la, la…”

  6. Enough already MDN with this indentation of responses to comments, on an iPhone the responses quickly become a slender column of characters that are unreadable. The indentation is unnecessary and extremely annoying.

Reader Feedback

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