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. All you need to know that the Global Warming crowd is nuts is to ask them, “Should we eliminate 100% of CO2?”
    If they answer yes, just walk away.

    If you don’t understand why, you’re part of the problem.

    1. You are also part of the problem. Instead of engaging in reasonable realistic actions we can take to improve health and prosperity for everyone, you want to play gotcha politics with the lowest monkeys on the other tree. I hope you realize your tree isn’t full of the smartest monkeys either.

      No matter, the more each sude throws shit at each other, the sooner desertification and extreme climate events will remove options from the table for you. You’ll get what you deserve.

      1. Hard Life: “Instead of engaging in reasonable realistic actions we can take…”

        So… What are realistic actions? Capture and remove CO2 is required? Just one ppmv is two BILLION tons of oxidized carbon. That would take a few years? What good will that do when we are adding at least ten times that amount every year? And, isn’t confusing the predictions of extreme weather with climate part of the problem?

  2. I remember when Steve Jobs was quoted as saying something to the effect of Apple having no desire to get too involved in politics. Not saying that I agree or disagree with this particular app, or the situation surrounding it, but I do wish that Apple had a more neutral stance towards controversial apps. Voltaire said that he may not agree with certain people, but he will defend their right to speak out, and I wish Apple would be more open in regards to the content that’s published.

  3. Without hearing Apple’s side of the story, we only have the developers’ side. When you are dealing with somebody whose basic narrative is that there is a huge conspiracy to suppress the truth, you should perhaps be skeptical when he points to somebody and alleges that they are a part of the conspiracy. There may be a rational basis for Apple’s action that is not rooted in politics.

    I will never get over how people can regard Apple’s stance towards the environment as political. There are no political facts, no Democrat facts, no Republican facts, no Liberal facts, no Conservative facts, and no Alternative Facts. There are only facts and non-facts.

    Obviously, none of us is God, so our command of the facts is always going to be partial. Our subjective opinions, hypotheses, and theories are never going to correspond exactly with objective reality. However, that does not mean that all opinions and theories are equal. Some explain the observed facts better and more elegantly than others. To argue otherwise is a counsel of futility, a claim that objective reality is simply unknowable, so there is no proof of anything.

    It this case, the observed facts have led roughly 97% of the people who study climate professionally to adopt some variation of the hypothesis that recent observed changes in the global climate is better and more simply explained by human-generated greenhouse gases than by any of the dozens of competing theories. The remaining 3% are spread across all the alternatives; they only agree that the prevailing theory is wrong.

    Apple is not subject to the First Amendment, so it is not required to devote equal time to both the consensus of highly regarded climate scientists and to their opponents. Not even the First Amendment requires equal treatment of facts and non-facts. Climate skeptics, like Flat Earthers, have a right to their opinion, but Apple is under no obligation to help them spread misinformation.

    1. It’s worse than that. The other 3% are published in non-peer reviewed journals, are authored and/or reviewed by non-climate scientists, have serious flaws, etc. It’s the dregs of what masquerades as research.

      The appropriate comparison here is getting a diagnosis of cancer and a plan of chemotherapy. You seek out the opinions of 100 doctors and the 97 of them who are oncologists agree on the diagnosis and offer a variety of treatments.

      The other 3 opinions are from a chiropractor, Dr. Oz, and stay-at-home mom with a homeopathic remedy site. They tell you it’s an imbalance of something in your body which can be treated by the product they just happen to sell and not to trust the “mainstream” experts.

      Who do you go with there?

  4. What exactly do you need to hear from Apple?

    The facts are an app that challenges the sacred cow pet liberal cause was SILENCED and BANNED with NO explanation from Apple.

    Hello FAKE conservative…

Reader Feedback

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