Apple buys rights to series based on New York Times Magazine climate change article

“Apple announced on Tuesday that it had bought the rights to a series produced by Anonymous Content and based on ‘Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change,’ a novelistic article by Nathaniel Rich that stretched more than 30,000 words and took up an entire issue of The Times Magazine earlier this month,” Brooks Barnes reports for The New York Times. “At least a half-dozen bidders sought to acquire the nonfiction project.”

“Anonymous Content is a production and management company known for films like ‘Spotlight’ and partly owned by a firm controlled by Laurene Powell Jobs. Mr. Rich, who is working on a related book called ‘Losing Earth’ to be published next year, will serve as an executive producer with Steve Golin, the Oscar-winning founder of Anonymous,” Barnes reports. “The ‘Losing Earth’ article recounted how, from 1979 to 1989, a small group of American scientists, activists and politicians tried to save the world from the ravages of climate change before it was too late.”

Barnes reports, “”Losing Earth’ is an extremely important piece of journalism and we are thrilled it will get a wider audience,’ Jordan Cohen, a spokesman for The Times, said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Tim Cook. Laurene Powell Jobs. The New York Times. Climate change… Symmetry. A more predictable Apple rights acquisition would be difficult to imagine.

SEE ALSO:
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

59 Comments

  1. I can see it now:

    Heroic scientists fudge data, when not inventing it outright, in order to eliminate income disparity on a global scale by taxing the makers in order to redistribute wealth to the takers. Yes, folks, it’s the U.S. Democrat Party writ large! Make sure to tune in every week for for Dem/Lib/Prog brainwashing! Same rat time, same rat channel!

    1. I can see the sequel on how we failed to stop climate change:

      Heroic trolls living under Comet Ping Pong, but financed by the coal industry, convince an extraordinary number of people (without evidence) that physical properties of carbon dioxide that have been suspected since at least 1824 and experimentally confirmed since 1859 are not true.

      In other words, global warming science is better established than nuclear physics.

      The first models attempting to predict global warming were published in 1896 and have undergone progressive improvements for the last 122 years. The details are still subject to refinement, but the general narrative has been settled for many decades.

      Evidentally, that does not believe any fact that does not confirm their bias that the Boogeyman is out to get them.

      1. Exactly. Except there is zero global warming. No warming in the last 18 years at least. Now, if there was, would warming be better than cooling. The morons who have not gotten the memo that there is no warming dont realize it is now “climate change” which is good because then the government can tax trillions if any weather changes. All to fix it. Except the idiot politicians who suggest these things can’t even figure out how to pay for Social Security or Medicare. Yeah, they can tell you with certainty that the weather is changing, and they can stop that from happening. To believe any of their horseshit is to identify yourself as a complete imbecile.

  2. The idea of human stopping “climate change” is so farcical it can only be believed by religious fundamentalists with no rational power, i.e., Democrats.

    The idea that our elite Washington leaders could set the ideal human temperature is so funny it should get comic treatment by all types of film makers. Most of our DC elite cannot get a date or human companionship without some sort of power play and lying promises. Control the worlds’ temperature? they can’t control their zippers.

  3. I absolutely hate the fact that owning Apple products now makes it seems like I am taking sides in political debates. Opening my Apple laptop or pulling out my iPad in public to do work or read is now a political act. I HATE that. I am actually looking at Samsung and Windows products now. I know it would be a downgrade, but rather that than be endorsing liberal political positions every time I use an Apple product. Oh, the money I’ve spent! Argh!

    1. I suppose that a series on Isaac Newton would constitute taking sides in the political debate about gravity. Scientific fact is either true or it isn’t. There are no “alternative facts.” A scientist who argues that “truth isn’t truth” isn’t a scientist. Determining scientific facts isn’t a political question. Believing scientific facts isn’t a political decision.

      The first predictive climate models using the greenhouse effect was published in 1896. That is nearly as old as the first commercial use of internal combustion engines.

      If you chose to reject Apple because it accepts scientific explanations of clearly observable phenomena, I hope you enjoy your Dell Computer and your Stanley Steemer.

      1. The entire basis for Global Warming, now Climate Change is that it is all based on modeling. This is fine, but is only the first step in the scientific process. In order to be accepted, it has to be argued and ultimately backed up with measured data. Here is where Global Warming, er Climate Change, falls down. Virtually every prediction made by the modeling has not happened. So, here we are with a great theory, which cannot be proven and has been disproven multiple times.

        If Isaac proposed gravity, and modeled it, but couldn’t measure it, there better be a debate about its soundness. Look at how many years it took the Theory of Relativity to become accepted. Science isn’t about jumping up and down and forcing people to believe your theory.

        1. Again, Larry, simply not true. To the extent that the models have failed to be less than 100% accurate (which would never be a reasonable expectation), it has mostly been in the direction of underestimating actual warming. The deniers have recently been trying to make hay of one recent paper suggesting that the rate of increase has slowed slightly because the Chinese have been cutting emissions more quickly than expected, but that actually confirms the notion that human actions have observable effects.

  4. Who hires “climate” scientists besides government? Who but government supplies climate research grants to colleges? The only way they can justify continuing to spend our tax money is to keep declaring that there is “problem”. For most, admitting that there is no problem would be the end of their career. The only reason this hoax is still around is because so much money has been invested in it.

    The Earth’s average temperature has been stable for over 20 years, even as CO2 has continued to climb. CO2 as “pollution” is bunk, perpetuated for the purpose of “redistributing wealth”. The CO2 level on Earth is currently 400 microatmospheres. In past time periods (e.g.- Jurassic period), sometimes thousands of years long, it has been anywhere from 6,000 to 30,000 microatmospheres. In fact, during the 4,000 YEAR long Holocene Climate Optimum, the planet was almost five (5) degrees (F) WARMER than it is now! Somehow, the planet didn’t “boil over” as Al Gore (the man living alone in a 9 bedroom, 6 fireplace mansion (w/ heated outdoor pool, natch) implies will happen. Now THAT’S an “inconvenient truth”……

    The past 10,000 years since the end of the Ice Age have seen four periods of warming greater than the present. Antarctic glaciers receded more 7,000 years ago than now. Global temperature and sea levels have been higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods. We are now just approximately 200 years from the end of the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, the Little Ice Age, during which glaciers advanced and sea level fell. Current warming is just a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, and a welcome one at that. The Little Ice Age had powerful storms, failing crops, raging disease epidemics, and struggles for survival. It is illogical to think that our current modest warming is not natural, or to prefer cooling to warming.

    1. As “the textbook” points out, if you are going to lie, it is better to repeat big lies than small ones.

      “The earth’s average temperature has been stable for 20 years” is possibly the biggest lie I have heard this year. It is so ludicrously wrong that I won’t even bother to refute it.

      Readers who are interested in doing their own research can easily find 19,200,000 results by entering “warmest average global temperatures by year” into their search engine of choice.

        1. Yet you come here to stifle debate, barf out FUD, and you side with those who willfully deny the existence of clear data like polar ice cores and reamsof other evidence which shows the rate of climate change is faster than most any inhabited period.

          It is astounding how the lazy greedy party can twist the word science into a meaningless catchphrase, to be killed off under a torrent of Big Oil propaganda.

          You can ignore the heat wave deaths, forest fires, desertification, intensifying storms, and direct economic costs that climate change is causing. But you will not be able to escape its effects entirely, and future generations will spit on your grave knowing you chose to do nothing to mitigate the messes you made and actively invested in to fund your self centered lifestyle. You are just as selfish and stupid as the idiots who have a dozen children and can’t afford to feed or school them.

    2. PS. If the climate scientists are just trying to keep the Government happy, why are they just as adamant about the science under the Trump Administration than they were before? If anything, the scientific consensus is even stronger now than before Mr. Trump took his trip down the Golden Escalator.

  5. And all the chicken-littles come running out. Just 30 years ago we were going to die from global cooling. And gee, I wonder how many SUV’s did it take to warm up the world from the last ice age. And carbon is the culprit. Really, did you know you exhale carbon and plants use it to make chlorophyll? Educate yourselves a little and their stupid argument falls apart. Yes, global climate change happens and it has happened ever since the globe existed. So what are you going to do about it? This scam that they are perpetrating is about control and taking down western economies. You don’t see China or India destroying their coal-fired plants and their own economies. You are fools.

      1. Check out global cooling 1970’s in your search engine, that’s when it was popular.
        I prefer a global melting model myself, so something to check out for yourself are the conditions of the ice caps and glaciers, growing shrinking or staying the same?

        Don’t be totally fooled though, the Earth overall is cooling and expanding internally and that plays a role as well.

        Either way, humans aren’t at the steering wheel so sit back relax and enjoy the ride.

  6. Here the polluters are having circle wa*nk again. You really have to get over it. Steam engine is gone. Combustion engine is soon gone. Welcome the era of electric.

        1. You may not know it but in the West the sun doesn’t shine at night, nor the wind blow often. And at night, and when the wind is not blowing, coal has to be there always reliably, when the fake power sources are nowhere to be found. Why, because leftists want there power always.

        2. So? That does not alter the fact that only 7% of the kilowatt-hours consumed in California come from coal. That means that there is only 10% as much CO2 being generated from coal as if your 70% number were true.

          As for electric vehicles, you do understand that even a coal-fired commercial power plant is far more efficient in converting chemical energy into electricity than a gas or diesel car engine? Even with the transmission, storage, and motor losses, that saves on total emissions.

          1. Your figure is wrong. California buys much power from out of state since it has screwed up its system with so much fake power. The out of state power, mostly carbon based, is not counted when the politicians brag about how their moron policies are working. Like being a sanctuary state. Molly Tibbets RIP.

          2. Again, Kent, not true. California requires all its electric utilities to publish a breakdown of how their power is generated. That includes purchased power if the source can be determined. If the source cannot be determined, the utility must say so. That power is mostly coming from adjacent states with a similar mix to California.

            For the state as a whole, 6% comes from coal. The largest utility, PG&E, gets none from coal. The untraceable component statewide is 17%, and less for the major producers like PG&E.

      1. Bullshit. Cite your data. In the usa, about 20% come from coal and it decreases every year as the power industry transitions to gas and renewables, which are more economical even before health impacts are tallied.

        As usual, the extreme right wing makes up its own “facts” to suit its profiteering.

  7. The sad and inconvenient truth about Climate Change is that no matter what the actual truth is about global warming, whether it is chiefly anthropogenic or not, it was a good opportunity to say, let’s err on the side of caution and do what we can to decrease our use of fossil fuels.

    Unfortunately they global radical nincompoop left ran with it. “Never waste a good crisis.” Instead of a scientific query it became politics. It turned into reasons to create new taxes, reasons for the U.S. to dumb billions into the third world like some kind of apology, reasons for the Obama administration to play crony politics and fund failed solar companies and other such nonsense.

    It turned into another leftist outrage and their hatred and intolerance of anyone who might disagree quickly became the same old name calling and hateful attacks on people.

    It turned into lies, calling people “climate deniers” for daring to ask questions. I don’t doubt that climates are changing, they always have and they always will. I just would prefer to see solutions, hear from other scientists, not just the liberal ones, rather than seeing climate change become an excuse for global governance and wealth redistribution.

    Oh well, the left blew it again.

    1. (assuming IT is “man-made_anthropogenic” and man & women can turn this dirty ship around)

      The UN thinks of it in a curious manner…

      “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

      So what is the goal of environmental policy?

      “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.”

      He continues:

      “The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said.”

      Another “leader” (Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change) wanting to save the world from evil carbon dioxide admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. (I’ll augment; via redistribution).

      It’s also very widely reported that the UN agreements (Paris Accord and Kyoto Protocol) would have minimalistic effects on global warming abatement…as in single digits effects.

      Shell-game duped ’em fiasco.

      1. I’d be interested in seeing a link to the original Edenhofer and Figueres quotes in context from a friendly or neutral source. The denier community has never met a quoted scientific paper it couldn’t mangle beyond recognition.

        1. Like MSNBC, of CNN? How ’bout Forbes the denier? Or, investors.com–another denier? You come to the court with the person guilty before proven so? Throw just a bit of the bias over board, eh?

          Just another tidbit: “Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

          Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

          Totally unbelievable to you, huh. It just doesn’t fit your narrative, I guess. “One World Govt” has conspiratorial reputation, but its reality is evident in those that rally for the Paris Accord type pacts. The fact the pacts are ineffectual to the goal pursued, combined with the tragic fraud noted in their words, show the one-world-erism in their goal. It’s all about redistribution of wealth/resources…making equal all in the one world.

      1. I am an Apple customer since 1982 and I can think just fine. The best part is I don’t NEED your approval.

        You just insulted millions of Apple users because we don’t agree with your daily poison of insulting THEM and the president and his loyal followers.

        You can LEAVE now …

        1. GoeB, if all the critics like TxUser leave then MDN becomes yet another echo chamber, simply validating a shared set of beliefs.. I see that as a social problem.. Political polarisation is a signal problem.. it led for example to the US Civil War, which is still being fought persistently to this very day in pockets; just like the noble and committed Japanese troops hunkered down on remote Pacific islands years after the Imperial Emperor surrendered. Those troops never got the message that the war was over. Their channels of communication weren’t open. In a way, neither are ours.

          1. It’s not about being a critic, as a good critic is welcomed. It’s about hubris and the high-horse he forgets he rides sometimes. As well, sometimes the horse is blind and disingenuous.

            1. I have to give you credit: you certainly know all about riding high horses with your daily multiple and lengthy tedious posts that are often blind as well as disingenuous (advancing Democrat agenda by denigrating our president). So look in the mirror, you just described yourself for Herself …

          2. No problem with honest and constructive criticism, I welcome it. Not approving of a daily dose of disingenuous criticism with a carefully couched hidden Democrat agenda driving it. Prefer you just come out and say it honestly …

  8. The political petards can argue climate change all they want, I tend to look at the overall environment. It’s not always a question of quantity, the ozone hole was caused by a very small amount of introduced material (such as CFCs) relative to the overall atmosphere of the planet. It’s a win win situation for planet Earth. Massive environmental changes coming will affect the entire Earth, after all a rising tide sinks all the shore lines. No massive environmental changes, that’s even better, shows the insignificance of humans to be able to do something about it. Plants are still the greatest living regulators, 20% oxygen and holding.

    Quality wise, well I’m pretty darn well sure the Earth did not look like this prior to the 1800’s.

      1. Larry,

        I’m not against progress per se it is how it is implemented. The classic example is thalidomide, a great drug used in the treatment of certain diseases and it was a great drug to treat morning sickness. The resulting thalidomide babies is not the kind of progress I like to see.

        Lifting the masses out of poverty, that would require some social progress and in that regards the target is way off.

        Yeah Lights at Night are bad, I never said that night lights are bad, there are beneficial and detrimental effects to night lights, just like there are to most things. What I am saying is that human activity changes the environment, night lights are a proof of that change. It’s not a good or bad thing. People haven’t learned yet that the best way to have your cake and to eat it too is to share it with someone else.

        Herself, always a pleasure to see you. I am convinced that unleashing the nuclear arsenal would not destroy all intelligent life on Earth and that the whales and dolphins would survive and continue at one of the main forms of intelligent life on this planet.

    1. The entire world should look like N Korea at night, even though it points to hardship, poorer health, hunger and often less freedom.

      In fact, some places w/o lights at night, usually means people are in their straw huts with the fire extinguished, catching a wink, so they can rise early to kill game for lunch. Lights are bad because it means progress and progress is bad.

      No, the writer isn”t implying a better earth would mean pole to pole concrete, or skyscrapers and the evil combustion engines (my friend Al Gore made me say that) packed in from east to west. It’s just a friendly challenge to the romantic notion of “how things used to be” and how people forget you can’t always have your cake and eat it too.

    2. Imagine, though, the images from space when all the Earth’s nuclear arsenals are called to duty, to defend the righteous against the infidels. Extinguishing intelligent life would never look so spectacular. It is a good way to die for a man, a piss-poor way to die for a species that once had god-like aspirations.

Add Your Feedback

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