Geologist accuses Apple of political bias in removing ‘Inconvenient Facts’ climate change app

“Political figures who support the so-called Green New Deal and other proposals to restrict carbon dioxide emissions are up against some “inconvenient facts” that Americans may access immediately through a smartphone application, a geologist and author says,” Kevin Mooney writes for The Daily Signal. “But there’s one big problem. The app, called Inconvenient Facts, is available only to Android users through the Google Play Store. Since March 4, users of Apple’s iPhone no longer can access the app through the tech giant’s App Store.”

“Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist with more than three decades of experience, told The Daily Signal in an interview that he has his own opinion about what may have transpired inside Apple. Wrightstone is the author of the book Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know, which served as the basis for the information available from the app,” Mooney writes. “He notes that former Vice President Al Gore, a leading proponent of the view that mankind’s activities propel dangerous climate change, is a board member of Apple.”

We thought at first it may have been our fault. But I did a search on climate change and global warming in the Apple App Store and pulled up a whole bevy of pro-man-made global warming apps that are really bad. They are not formatted, they have incorrect spellings and no links. But I suppose they have the political narrative right. Compared to these, our app is the gold standard. I made sure we had charts and links and references to the source for our data. This is all right in the palm of your hand…

Just to be clear, I don’t, and my colleagues don’t, dispute that CO2 is increasing, and I agree that it has to have some slight warming effect on the atmosphere. But I argue that it’s modest and overwhelmed by the same natural forces that have been driving temperatures since the dawn of time… Looking out across Earth’s history, CO2 levels are extremely low. I always argue we are actually CO2 impoverished. — Gregory Wrightstone

“‘A key takeaway here is that Apple has a monopoly over iPhone apps and the Apple App Store is the only place to get them,’ Wrightstone said. ‘It appears that Apple has chosen to weaponize its control over purchasing apps to stifle science that doesn’t conform to its politically correct notions,'” Mooney writes.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Regardless of the app, we don’t think Apple should be banning those that do not espouse violence or otherwise do not run afoul of Apple’s published App Store Review Guidelines.

MacDailyNews Note: Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Off-topic posts and ad hominem attacks will be deleted and those who post such comments will be moderated/blocked. Permanent loss of screen name could also result.

Apple under fire for banning pro-life app from App Store – October 18, 2017


  1. Apple is showing a very dark side here. It is censoring people for their political views thus attacking large elements of its own customer base. And for no good reason. Censorship. And all this done by the people who claim science is on their side. Very insecure. And a slap in the face of freedom of expression and thought. Steve Jobs would never endorse this.

    1. I will differ with you on one point. Steve Jobs WAS a control freak censor. He once banished all Wiley publications (including many Wiley scientific publications) over iCon: The Greatest Second Act, because it offended him. BS!

      1. Well we can’t know. I don’t know Wiley but I believe Steve Jobs, though personally a liberal, believes very strongly in the founding ideas of America like freedom of expression. I believe he would have been appalled at the idea of banning dissenting views. It is so antithetical to the spirit of Apple.

        1. Liberal IS the spirit of Apple. You don’t have the spirit of Apple without ALLL the liberals running it… from the beginning until now.

          You’re trying to say you think liberals believe very strongly in the founding ideas of America?

          1. the rabid right conveniently forgets that the United States was founded by liberals.

            back in the day, conservatives were called Tories and they preferred the status quo: British monarchy.

            Liberals, and only liberals, fight for justice for the downtrodden.

            1. Uhm, those ‘liberal’ founders were railing against royal control in favor of individual freedom. Today’s ‘liberals’ are all in favor of the tyranny the royals exercised for millennia, which hindered innovation.

              You’re doing the same thing with ‘climate change.’ Plenty of evidence those behind this collective scheme to control the masses cooked the books to get the results they want to push a false narrative and sow fear among the masses.

            2. @ smitty: so you would weaken liberal democracy so the most corrupt corporation can flood the swamp with their lobbyists, replacing you, the citizen? who do you think your congressman works for?

              if you don’t elect “liberal” representatives willing to enforce regulations that protect citizens, then your already ailing democracy will die. don’t pretend your party has all the answers, especially when their default answer to everything is to let corporations have carte blanche to do anything they want.

              how much does Tim Cook truly earn? he takes several hundred times what you make, but what does he actually earn??? that’s the guy who will have 1000000000% more influence in DC than you do, using Apple resources for his pet projects. how many ultra liberal CEOs will it take before you admit that wise regulation of business is necessary and good???????

            3. You are correct. And todays “liberals” are obviously not liberal because they hate the Founders, describing them as all white slave owners who created a patriarchal government designed to put landowners in charge and keep everybody else down.

              Further, today’s fake liberals hate the Constitution. They hate the Bill of Rights, they hate the Electoral College, they hate that it does not include a right to abort babies so they had to fantasize that.

              You are correct. The founders were classical liberals. Today;’s Democrats are classic communists. Marx and Lenin would be proud.

          2. Liberals in the classical sense, for which freedom is a primary tenet. Apple’s banning of political views (which aren’t even that controversial) is highly antithetical to true liberal values.

            It is incredibly disappointing that Apple would lower itself to such a pathetic level.

            1. AOC fan: produce one example that shows “disinformation” or accept that you have no intellectual credibility.

              Do you realize how completely dumb your post is btw? Are you not embarrassed? By your “logic,” eliminating a competing viewpoint is somehow allowing debate to happen? So pathetic lol

            2. @patchythepirate: You completely and utterly misunderstand AOCFan’s post (perhaps deliberately?). Misinformation is not a competing viewpoint; it’s a lie, designed to mislead and/or misinform, in a dishonest attempt to win a debate. Your argument that s/he is saying that eliminating misinformation is eliminating debate is what is dumb and pathetic.
              As for examples of misinformation? Try

        2. Jobs was about as Liberal as Thomas Jefferson, or Adam Smith, Thomas Paine or Ayn Rand. I.e. classical liberal. As far as what passes for liberalism these days, I think using that word in relation to the man is certainly an insult at best. Tim Cook is a modern liberal, for instance. In comparison it doesn’t require a deep dive into the personality of Jobs to determine that he would have no time for the absurdities Cook drags that company’s name into.

          He remarked on occasion that he was no collectivist, and indeed trusted individuals over groups. Love of individual freedom is a trait of classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives.

          He was like many who had a simplistic view of the American political spectrum. Liberals are good guys and conservatives are bad guys. It takes time, analysis, and critical thinking applied to numerous issues to find out what liberalism and conservatism truly mean in America now, let alone where you actually stand.

          Watching his interviews and reading his speeches and quotes, he may not have known it, but he was a very conservative capitalist with a dim view of much of modern liberalism.

    2. Soooo his app got removed BUT Apple didn’t tell him why? Doesn’t happen. In most cases when you have someone saying Apple removed them, it’s usually been because they have to make a change that they either don’t want to make OR can’t make because the original developer isn’t available anymore.

      It’ll drive a lot of traffic to his site (yes, everything on the internet is clickbait) and he’ll make the change, get his app reposted, and will say he won?

      Also, for anyone who thinks that the ONLY way they can get information like this is through this ONE app on the App Store, I’d like to introduce you to this new thing called the internet.

      1. Your name is appropriate because you are definitely, “wrong again.” The app was removed. There is speculation that the app did not provide “substantive information,” and is therefore no longer available in the App Store. I guess references to multiple research studies, IPCC reports, academic sources etc. are not considered “scientific enough.” The information is indeed available other places, but it is curious that it is still up in Google Play but not in Apple. I’m sure it is purely coincidental that the book Dr. Writghtstone has written, which calls into question much of the alarmist “science” put forward by climate change proponents, allowed people to access his information questioning the climate change science through the app. I’m sure it is also purely coincidental that a few days after appearing on Blaze TV that the app was pulled from the App Store. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Al Gore is a member of the board at Apple and Dr. Wrightstone’s book, “Inconvenient Facts” questions much of what Al Gore projects as fact and truth. The app was a synopsis of the 60 inconvenient facts and included videos used to educate people about the science they are not told about regarding climate change. I guess differing opinions are not allowed at Apple.

    3. You have a darkside too. You assume the guy’s accusation is true and that his “inconvenient facts” are too.

      There is no slap in the face to freedom of expression and thought. No one is stopping him or you from saying, expressing or thinking anything you want to.

      He does not say why Apple told him the app was rejected. He prefers to assume a story line that is convenient and one that he thinks validates his paranoia.

      Mooney is another well known denier from the far right who wouldn’t nw what the truth was if it took a dump in his mouth.

      The whining and crying from Mooney and Wrightstone is pathetic. They have one objective from it and it is completely political and ideologic.

      He could easily set up a website based app, but he would rather use this as a political/ideological opportunity to present his very shaky and doubtful views.

  2. It’s Not About the Climate — It Never Was

    What is the climatic benefit of spending trillions of dollars and fundamentally changing our economy and way of life?

    Carbon dioxide is a small player in climate change.

    The United Nations has become the modern-day Robin Hood — creating wealth redistribution on a global scale. Industrialization has made developed nations ‘rich’, and by using fossil fuels, they are supposedly destroying our climate, for which the developed world must pay. Rich nations, therefore, must give much of their wealth to the poorer nations. Climate change has become the cause célèbre to move nations to action.

    The Green New Deal is not about stopping climate change. Climate always changes and always will. The United States has cut back on greenhouse gas emissions by about 13% since 2005 to virtually no effect on the Earth’s climate. The net effect of reducing the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 would be negligible.

    Even reduction by 100% would have little effect on the climate, but the policies proposed by the Green New Deal would make Karl Marx proud. But realize this; any draconian changes such as these would necessarily change our fundamental way of life. And that, not addressing the ills of climate change, is what the Green New Deal is all about.

    — David R. Legates, Ph.D., Professor of Geography and Climatology, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

    I invite open-minded people to read Legates’ oral testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives given Wednesday, February 27, 2019.

    1. a) Scientific debate should be had by scientists expert in the subject matter.
      b) What is the price of being wrong, either way.
      c) Censorship absolutely sucks. Even I would defend your right to spew your nonsense.

        1. “Your a fool,”

          He’s a fool? Learn to speak and write English before you call someone else a fool over your politically biased interpretation of their comments.

      1. No. People are open minded if they are allowed to read, and do read everything they can. Most Climate Change acolytes are not open minded. They often seem to be like children who put their hands over their ears and keep screaming “I can’t year you.” That is certainly their right, but you certainly cannot accuse them of being open minded.

        From an open minded perspective, for instance, I have come to the conclusion that much of what passes for Climate science is political. The narrative is that the Earth’s warming is chiefly anthropogenic, caused by human beings. Nonetheless there is ample evidence to suggest this is wrong.

        I believe the only rational conclusion you can come to is that whether human beings are responsible or not, we should endeavor not to be. We should continue to reduce the exploitation of fossil fuels and dumping of all greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

        It’s a what the hell kind of problem, but we also need to be very careful we don’t create all new problems, which is what we tend to do when we panic. We should also not participate in globalist redistribution of wealth schemes pushed as a solution to climate change.

        1. Completely disagree. Ideas are like food. You wouldn’t eat poison. Why would you listen to poison?

          This denier guy is an idiot. The overwhelming science is that anthropogenic climate change is real and we are in a boatload of trouble even if we do finally get off our collective assets. Oil is too powerful to go against. Humanity is more or less doomed. Because of our own hubris.

          1. To Donnie and others: General Relativity was published over 100 years ago, in 1915. Since its publication, it has been tested by every means that generations of bright, inventive scientists could devise. Recently, yet another physicist devised a new test. Did the physics community rage against him? Did they demonize him? No. Every new test is encouraged, because physics is science. Who demonizes dissenters? Who resents the testing of ideas? Religious and political types.

            It is tragic that understanding the mechanisms of climate has been politicized and that a single viewpoint been protected with the intolerance one would expect of some fundamentalist religion. Climate science is critically important! How many lives have been saved because of our increasing understanding of hurricanes, of flooding, of winter storms? Science—not religion or politics—is what saved those lives.

  3. I’m not going to start a mess on here, but Apple appears to be acting like the very same countries it has a partnership with. Unfortunately, I left the apple scene about two years ago when I wanted a ton of GPU power. But the best I could do on the Mac side for what I wanted was about $3k. I got a different system with the same horsepower for about half. I was hoping one day to return to the Mac side, but execs at Apple are starting to show their true colors. I’m dubious.

    1. I am thinking about ditching my Apple products. This is not the first case of censorship, and I fear it may not be the last. Apparently Apple wants to put politics ahead of profits. A shame because I do love my Apple products and do not want to switch but I believe in freedom of thought. I think supporting Apple, knowing they believe more in censorship than robust debate, may just be too much to justify my keeping my 2 iPads, multiple phones, computer and watch. Sad.

    1. You’re assuming that this guy’s story is correct. Have you heard Apple’s side? Do you actually KNOW why the app was removed from the store? Or are you just believing the first thing you read?
      You know what happens when you assume something.

    1. Hi

      I checked two ways – the app is missing from the app store.

      I chatted with an iPhone rep about it and she basically admitted it had happened. Gave me a website to follow up on. She promised to pass it up the chain of command.

      1. Thanks for checking. But we still don’t know why it was removed. It may have been removed for some reason completely unconnected to the politics of its content.
        The guy’s story may be true, but it’s always dangerous to draw conclusions after hearing just one side of a dispute.

        1. It appears there were no violations of Apple App Store guidelines. The decision was appealed and the appeal was denied. Looked at the information on Google Play app and it lines up with the information in the book. Not sure what else it could be other than a difference of political views.

  4. Been an Apple user since the days of the Apple IIE, little by little they get me closer to jumping ship. After seeing blatant censorship like this I likely won’t be buying any more Apple products.

    1. Ummm…not quite…

      “He wasn’t a founder of Greenpeace. Moore was an early member, joining Greenpeace about a year after it started, but he’s no more a “founder” than everyone who worked at Apple or Google in their first year.

      Moore didn’t stick with Greenpeace long, because he found a much more lucrative scam. Thirty-three years ago, he left the organization and created a “consulting group” (which seems to consist only of himself) named Greenspirit Enterprises. And what does Greenspirit do? Represent oil companies. And coal companies. And uranium mining companies. And pesticide manufacturers. And basically anyone who wants to take a massive dump on the environment while putting an arm around the guy who was “the founder of Greenpeace.”

      1. Have you met the guy? I met Patrick Moore in 1980. I was attending university and he hired me for a summer job to do some research and produce a slide show on Pacific Northwest Coastal Wildlife. I found Patrick to be extremely well educated and has some very good views on protecting the environment and wildlife. I also did not see him as the “professional protestor” type of person. He was a lot more constructive and preferred to work with the so called dirty industries to change their ways. Other people’s opinions of him or anybody else may vary, but I would hesitate to criticize anybody unless I actually have an understanding of what that person is about.

        I am also hesitant to criticize Tim Cook. But I look at the direction he has taken Apple. My first Apple product was an Apple ][+, slightly modified. I remember hearing of a conversation about the two Steves regarding selling a personal micro computer that was supposed to be easy to program. The question posed was, “what are people going to do with it?” and Steve Jobs’ reply was “I don’t know. Let’s just put it out there and see what happens”. And the world changed. To me, that’s what a “PRO” device is supposed to do. I am having trouble seeing that coming from Apple anymore.

        I do agree with the discussion on this thread that maybe we need to know why Apple rejected the app. If it’s a technical issue, then let’s address the technical issue. If it’s a polical/censorship/ideology issue (let’s not drag religion into this), then Apple may have taken another step away from Steve’s vision of where he originally started Apple to be.

  5. It’s not the first time Apple has deleted apps that didn’t agree with their (non-technology) ideologies. And how can a company indeed have a social ideology given the diversity of employees who are not represented by Apple’s positions?

    1. You propose that corporations should be held to standards, with real teeth behind the rules. What a concept.

      You must not be one of the right wing activists that run (ruin?) this site. They scream at any existing rules or even proposals to make common sense rules then they bitch endlessly when Apple exercises its monopoly power.

  6. Very sad indeed…. and I agree with Mr. Legates. A few facts to stir the pot, the earth’s atmosphere contains only ~0.04 PERCENT carbon dioxide (4 parts in 10,000). Considering all of the naturally occurring processes that generate CO2 (roughly 30 times what we generate), I have a hard time wrapping my head around the theory that OUR CO2 is the sole problem, or if it is the cause at all. The correlation between a trending CO2 level and temperature graph does not infer that one causes the other. So we’re going change our way of life about a 1.4 degree C increase over the past 100 years due to an atmosphere constituent that comprises 4 hundredths of 1 percent of our atmosphere….hmmm. (still want to get the calibration and tolerance data from the temperature measuring devices they used years ago).

    1. You post as “Engineer.” Not climate scientist or any other field relevant to the topic. Yet you feel qualified to base an opinion based on an atmospheric constituent percentage? Have you ever run a climate simulation? Do you have an-depth knowledge of the models and mathematics and datasets upon which the simulations are based? Have you studied the correlations of those simulations with historical data or the assumptions and parameters used to extrapolate to the coming decades?

      If not, then your opinion is invalid. Guy feel may be valid in the political arena, but not in science or engineering.

      By the way, there are many situations in which the addition of 0.04% of something can substantially change the outcome.

      1. “By the way, there are many situations in which the addition of 0.04% of something can substantially change the outcome.”

        If you were an engineer, you would have acknowledged that 0.04% of something is the existing state of the atmosphere and not the percentage change seen as the result of natural and man-made influences. Changes to the existing may be in the order of 25% actual, i.e. a 25% increase in CO2. Nevertheless, the idea that CO2 is some kind of greenhouse gas is laughable.

    2. Engineer, it’s a shame you let your ignorance of facts get in the way of forming meaningful opinion.

      CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Anthropogenic releases of methane from agriculture and now, in particular, fracking are skyrocketing, and methane is 25x more potent a greenhouse gas. The effect is autocatalytic as well. As the global temperature increases, millions of tons more of methane that are trapped in the permafrost are now beginning to be released. The concentration of water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) increases with temperature as well And those are just small pieces of the puzzle.

      There was a time when people said “Oh, the ocean is so vast, we can’t be affecting it”. Cue the garbage patches, huge anoxic dead zones, depleted fisheries all from activities that are, arguably, far less on a percentage basis than what we’ve done to the atmosphere.

      The same folks using FUD to discredit anthropogenic climate change were the same ones fighting the CFC ban. And that’s a clear example where we altered the atmosphere at the PPM level and came calamitously close to worldwide peril (skin cancer rates at the tip of South America and northern Europe rose 10-15%).

      It’s sad that you are too intellectually lazy to go read the scientific literature and instead rely on whatever agenda-driven news source/tweeter you’ve derived your mathematical “model” from. People like yourself are so incredibly discomfited by the notion that they might just be part of the problem that they immediately reject facts lest they discover they are wrong or accept blame. It’s willful ignorance and it’s sad, so sad.

      Speaking of inconvenient truths and facts, Gregory Wrightstone, curiously omits from his bio ( ) his ties to the fracking and petroleum industries. He calls himself a “geologist” but nowhere on his bio does the word “petroleum” appear. Now, why would he want to hide that? Hmmm. Go figure

  7. I’d also approve them banning anti-vax apps.
    Apple has a very legitimate reason to not sell apps that peddle false information.
    In fact, tech websites that continue to peddle anti-vax bullshit may someday find themselves sued by people who die as a result. I wouldn’t be surprised if future climate change disasters lead to similar lawsuits.

  8. He sounds like a minority, disgruntled voice crouching in a corner waving a stick at anyone who walks by.

    But not only is the original article click bait, so is this reposting by MDN. I get it. MDN has to make a dollar for which I do not begrudge it.

  9. Apple doing this angers me. I purchased both the book then purchased the App after hearing the author speak on a talk show. The app is very well done and basically just a collection of charts and graphs, all from government (NOAA) and well recognized sources. Everything is documented fully with links to original sources.
    No matter which side of the debate on climate change you stand, Apple banning access to differing viewpoints should be concerning. This is not the first time they have done something like this, nor will not be the last, I’m sure. I want Apple to spend their time on making better products and services, not telling me how I should think. Less politics, less activism and spend more time making sure your products receive timely hardware updates please!

  10. Im glad Apple is making the right decision in removing fake news about climate change. If we believe science deniers, then there is the chance that our mistakes will make 🐧penguins 🐧 extinct. We don’t want to lose those beautiful birds, and Apple is being responsible here!

      1. I have an entire PowerPoint on that and it explains exactly why Antarctic sea ice would be expected to increase even as the climate warms. It is not the “Antarctic ice mass” increasing. Further, the loss from the Arctic is about an order of magnitude greater than the modest gains at the south pole.

        Just another example of someone using a factoid out of context to try and dismiss overwhelming evidence.

        1. Lol. You realize that you make no sense right?

          Please do us all a huge favor and explain, even in brief summary, how antarctic ice mass, or mass of ice in the antarctic sea, or volume of solid phase H2O at southern pole, or however you want to refer to it, is supposed to increase with increase in global mean temp. Lol. And if you plan on commenting on earths obliquity, you may want to consider that as solar radiation is directed away from the south pole, it invariably increases solar radiation to the north pole. Guess what happens then?

          Also, the order of ice loss in the arctic is a magnitude greater? Any source for that? Besides your power point of course.

          This looks like just another example of someone with a power point that doesn’t understand the larger context of the climate.

    1. Climate change is very real; the fake part is the significance of the impact man has ever had on it, compared to natural climate change cycles which has been happening since the planet formed.

Reader Feedback

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