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.

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

89 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. what does the outraged righties propose to solve Apple’s now unlimited political power?

    will you support a democratic government having regulatory authority over corporations or will you continue to allow yourselves to be bobble head shills for the corporate oligarchs that are trying to dismantle the institutions that give you a voice in what is left of your democracy?

    1. Apple can choose to do what they like. They will suffer the consequences of people coming to understand that they are disingenuous not just with the way they handle their products as of late, but in morally incorrect ways as well.

      As it stands now, Apple has become a company that cannot be “trusted.” You cannot trust them with hardware, you cannot trust them with software, you cannot trust the App Store. Apple lies overtly and through omission. As their reputation for this kind of thing grows, the market will react.

      Consequently the government should stay out of it.

  6. Given the posts in this topic, the human race is doomed (and rightfully so). Willful Idiots deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions, or lack thereof. It is painful to be more intelligent than the vast majority of humanity and to have to suffer the same fate as the idiots.

    I suppose that this is nature’s way of clearing out the failed attempts at developing an intelligent species…

  7. If it is bullshit I concur with Apple’s decision to ban it. And it does appear to be bullshit!

    All across the world the impact of climate change is apparent. As long ago as the 19th Century people were writing that the increase in CO2 was going to lead to a warmer planet.

    Those who deny the impact of man-made climate change are simply liars or fools.

  8. Please try to think differently and not politically.

    Thought 1: When his app was pulled Apple would have sent him a notice as to why it was pulled. Why does he not post that notice? If it gives a truly bogus reason, we can all call out Apple for that bogus reason. If Apple gave a legitimate reason in that notice then we should all get behind Apple on this. Further, if Wrightstone claims he got no notice from Apple, then we should all consider his claims pretty much BS.

    Thought 2: All scientific inquiries and experiments and measurements of any significant extent include anomalous data — all of them. It is commendable that NOAA and other organizations publish that anomalous data. That does not mean that the anomalous data supports the general trends or facts.

    Supposedly Millikan reported in his notes some counts of non integer electron charge. He discounted them and did not end up claiming that electrons have non integer charge. But, he did not delete such measurements from his data set. Does anyone believe that the Standard Model should have fermions with non integer charge? No. But you don’t discard the original measurements either.

    Macroscopic quantum tunneling has supposedly been recorded a few times but it has not been reproducible. Because it has supposed shown up a few times are we all, as individuals, now going to claim we should be able to walk through walls? Clearly not. You don’t base your actions on a few non-reproducible events. You go with what’s been recorded and tested many times over: if you try to walk through a wall you’ll get your nose smashed.

    Cherry picking measurements that are anomalous or don’t fit with 99% of the rest of the data is about as unscientific as it gets. You should never base your theories or actions upon them. But, you don’t throw away that evidence either.

  9. The problem of addressing and altering the climate is not about the model projected temperatures in the future or the rise in sea level. It should be about the immense amount of CO2 that must be removed, technologically, captured and buried. To return to a “safe” 350 ppmv the fifty ppmv of CO2 required is about 370 gigatons of oxidized carbon. There is no safe place to put it and it would take many hundreds of years, cost trillions. These are facts that are not mentioned in the zeal by the New Green Deal to act now, hiding apps or not.

    1. There are perfectly safe places to put this toxic waste in. They’re called plants. It’s even been studied: high levels of CO2 increased crop yields by 15-20%. And that’s not even counting the blue-green algae that create 70% of the earth’s oxygen.

      Lol. It’s incredible how little the alarmists actually understand about the climate, yet they defend it as if they’re st george slaying a dragon.

      Psst.. dragons aren’t real..

      1. Simple fact: plants require CO2 in order to live, they put out Oxygen on the other side of the cycle, which mammals and other living things require, over a period of time they balance each other.

        We have been through several ice ages, which obviously implies warming periods.

        CALM DOWN, PEOPLE! Believe me, people who panic are the ones who screw things up! World history proves that!

      2. we are currently adding 25-30 gigaton of CO2 annually. How many years will it take to get emissions to zero? Planting millions of new trees will take a few years (twelve?). These trees will be competing with the huge numbers of solar panel and wind “farms” and both will take over land we now use for agriculture. Biofuels are also in the mix and they are 90% fossil fuel and when they are burned the CO2 is back in the air. Not a good plan, overall. Very expensive and lengthy.

        1. The denialists don’t grasp mathematics. They don’t even understand the loss of arable land that is happening at an accelerating pace under their noses. Nor do they support any tree planting, which is woefully underfunded.

Reader Feedback

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