Apple’s newly completed renewable projects, part of the company’s planned $4.7 billion Green Bond investment, are bringing clean energy to local communities while reducing carbon emissions. In 2020, Apple funded 17 Green Bond projects that will avoid an average of 921,000 metric tons of carbon emissions annually, which is equivalent to removing nearly 200,000 cars from the road. The projects will generate 1.2 gigawatts of renewable energy globally, with Apple adding over 350 megawatts of newly installed renewable energy over the last year in Nevada, Illinois, Virginia, and Denmark. Apple’s Green Bond issuances are among the largest in the private sector.
“Apple is dedicated to protecting the planet we all share with solutions that are supporting the communities where we work,” said Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives, in a statement. “We all have a responsibility to do everything we can to fight against the impacts of climate change, and our $4.7 billion investment of the proceeds from our Green Bond sales is an important driver in our efforts. Ultimately, clean power is good business.”
Since the historic climate change agreement at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, Apple has invested the proceeds from three issuances of Green Bonds to support global efforts in carbon emissions reductions. In February 2016, the company issued its first $1.5 billion Green Bond, following up with its second round of $1 billion in June 2017 after the former US Administration’s announcement of its intention to withdraw from the agreement reached at COP21. In November 2019, Apple issued its third set of Green Bonds and its first in Europe, with two bonds each at 1 billion euros (totaling approximately $2.2 billion USD).
In addition to those detailed in Apple’s Green Bond Impact Report, the company has continued funding new projects that support low carbon design and engineering, energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon mitigation, and carbon sequestration. Apple has allocated more than half of its total Green Bond spend — $2.8 billion — and will continue to invest in projects that address carbon emissions. Last July, the company unveiled its plan to become carbon neutral across its entire business, manufacturing supply chain, and product life cycle by 2030. Apple is already carbon neutral today for its global corporate operations, and this new commitment means that by 2030, every Apple device sold will have net zero climate impact.
Apple’s Latest Investments in Renewable Energy
Onsite solar project outside of Reno, Nevada: A 180-acre site located within the Reno Technology Park is now providing power to Apple’s Nevada data center. The project, recognized as “Utility-Scale Project of the Year” by Solar Builder magazine, has created 236 clean energy construction jobs of which more than 90 percent were filled by Nevada residents, and represents a more than $60 million investment in Washoe County. This site is delivering 50 megawatts of renewable power to Apple, joining the company’s three other Nevada projects that deliver 270 megawatts.
Wind farm outside of Chicago: A 112-megawatt virtual power purchase agreement with this wind farm in Illinois covers Apple’s electricity use in the Chicago region. This project aggregated buyers, enabling other companies with less purchasing power to access the same high-quality renewable energy as Apple.
Solar project in Fredericksburg, Virginia: Through an innovative agreement, Apple worked with Etsy, Akamai, and SwissRE to support the development of 165 megawatts of renewable power through a solar photovoltaic project outside Fredericksburg, Virginia, which is now delivering energy to the broader electric grid in the region.
Largest onshore wind turbines in Denmark: Apple has completed construction of two of the world’s largest onshore wind turbines, a source of clean, renewable energy that is now operational. Located near the Danish town of Esbjerg, the 200-meter-tall turbines are expected to produce 62 gigawatt hours each year — enough to power almost 20,000 homes — and will act as a test site for powerful offshore wind turbines. The power produced at Esbjerg will support Apple’s data center in Viborg, with all surplus energy going into the Danish grid.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s annual impact report covers the allocation of its 2019 Green Bond proceeds to environmental projects that incurred spend between September 29, 2019, and September 26, 2020 — Apple’s 2020 fiscal year. The Green Bond Impact Report, Fiscal Year 2020 Update can be found here (.pdf).
Elon would have made the projects produce 1.21 Gigawatts. Just because
I’m sorry, but the only power source capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.
What did you say?
A bolt of lightning. Unfortunately, you never know when or where it’s ever gonna strike.
Why does Apple hate plants and trees so much?
During nearly all of Earth’s history, carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration was at many multiples of our current level, averaging 2,600 ppm, or 6.5 times our current measurement. Forerunners of most of the plants we rely on for sustenance first appeared around 150 million years ago when CO₂ levels were more than 2,000 ppm. Since that time CO₂ has fallen steadily and precipitously.
In fact, at the end of the last ice age, carbon dioxide reached the dangerously low level of 182 ppm, thought to be the lowest since the Pre-Cambrian time period more than 600 million years ago. Why is it dangerous? Because 150 ppm is the lowest level at which plant life can survive. We came within a whisker of breaching that “line of death.” Until we began adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, there was no guarantee that this horrific threshold would not be crossed in the future.
It has been long known that increasing CO₂ benefits plant growth through the CO₂ fertilization effect. Recognizing the benefits of this, greenhouses often increase CO₂ to 1,500 ppm. Research from laboratory studies by the Center for the Study of CO₂ and Global Change have documented that a 300 ppm rise in CO₂ levels would increase plant biomass by 25 to 50%. This significant boost in plant productivity, along with a boost from lengthening growing seasons, means that we are better able to feed a hungry planet.
An additional significant benefit from this increasing CO₂ fertilization is that the plants have smaller stomata (pores) and have lessened water needs. Less water used means that more stays in the ground and is leading to increasing soil moisture across much of the planet and a “greening” of the Earth. According to NASA, up to 50% of the Earth is “greening,” in part due to higher CO₂ levels. This increased soil moisture is a primary cause for the long-term decrease in forest fires and droughts worldwide.
● More CO₂ makes plants grow faster and with less stress.
● Forests are growing faster in response to increasing CO₂.
● More CO₂ stimulates growth of beneficial bacteria in both soil and water.
● CO₂ fertilization, leading to more plant growth, means less erosion of topsoil.
● More CO₂ means bigger crop yields, and more and bigger flowers.
● More CO₂ fosters glomalin, a beneficial protein created by root fungi.
● More CO₂ helps plants to create natural repellents to fight insect predators.
If plants had a say in the matter, they would not lobby for reductions in CO₂ levels.
For plants, CO₂is food. They need more of it, not less.
I now return you to the “climate change / covid-19” hysterical fear porn overreaction which far too many godless, clueless Democrats have turned into a twisted pseudo-religion in a desperate attempt to fill their empty souls.
Great parody! Can we see the ones about how smoking is good for us and thalidomide is the ideal cure for morning sickness?
The “climate change” bullshit, which Tim Cook and his token minions like fat-assed Lisa Jackson have obviously swallowed hook, line, and sinker, is, like the hysterical COVID-19 overreaction, all about hand-waving, emotion, and prompting gullible, mentally deficient kids and idiot adults to protest. It has nothing to do with the actual science. It’s a cover story for the real goal of socialistic wealth transfer on a global scale.
Are we talking about the same pandemic that killed 500,000 Americans while we were taking steps to mitigate it?!
We set half the middle east on fire when 2,000 were killed on 9/11.
Go peddle your fear porn somewhere else.
Some of us are capable of independent thought here.
93% of COVID-19 deaths nationwide have occurred among those ages 55 or older. Only 0.2 percent were younger than 25. This trend can also be found on the state level.
CDC data also show that Americans, regardless of age group, are far more likely to die of something other than COVID-19. Even among those in the most heavily impacted age group (85 and older), only 13.3 percent of all deaths since February 2020 were due to COVID-19.
Deaths from issues related to the mindless COVID-19 shutdowns seem to be far exceeding those directly related to COVID-19.
Shutting down the economy is a cure clearly worse than the disease.
The economies that took it seriously were back up and running quickly. It’s idiots like us that dragged out the economic decline with half-measures, half-baked reopenings, and stupid arguments over basic things like “will a mask actually do the thing we’ve been using masks to do forever?”
We used to rely on science to put us on top. Now nutters like you are going to get us all killed, and make us all poor.
So I can go on a shooting spree, as long as I only target victims over 55 and don’t shoot more people than would die of cancer? Apparently, it does not matter if I ”kill only 13.3%” of my targeted population. Do you even listen to yourself?
TxUser,
It’s too bad that the oh-so-deadly COVID preyed upon fat, diabetic, asthmatic, old smokers with heart and/or lung disease and not on those with low IQs. That way we’d already be blessedly free of fools like you.
Hopefully China can manufacture LOWIQ in time to release upon the world in order to try to thwart the next real American president who has the stones to stand up for America instead of treating it like a doormat / money machine.
Carbon dioxide is plant food. And it’s also playing a role in making the earth greener.
The claim that the weather is worse because of trace CO2 is outright bullshit.
And right-wingers are generally more knowledge on climate matters than left-wingers.
During nearly all of Earth’s history the planet was uninhabitable for species like ours. It took billions of years before it became something like the paradise it is today.
Then, in just two centuries we released carbon that had been captured over hundreds of millions of years. So don’t worry, no one will be starving the plants of CO2.
Take your bullshit elsewhere.
“Climate Change” Is A Hoax
Like some suckers still do, I once believed that “science” was a rigorous process where you tested theories and revised those theories in response to objective evidence. But in today’s shabby practice, “science” is just a package of self-serving lies buttressing the transnational liberal elite’s preferred narrative. Our alleged betters hope that labeling their propaganda “science” will science-shame you into silence about what everyone knows is a scam.
Nah. “Climate change” is a hoax.
When you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather.
Observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. That the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. The planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. Of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about China and India, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. Yet the object of their ire is your New York strip. Gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/Jesusland?
The underlying premise of their claims seems to be that there is a “right” temperature for the earth; watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for Earth’s thermostat. Remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” If they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature.
But then, what are they comparing the present climate to in order to declare that our climate is “getting worse?” If you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. That would be awkward.
It happened after Katrina. “Oh, Katrina’s proof positive that Gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…” then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. You might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. Every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. At least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again.
Heads, you must give us all your freedom and money, and also tails, you must give us all your freedom and money.
Now, we’re being told that we’re all going to die in…I guess we’re down to what? About 11.5 years this go ‘round? Of course, we’ve been told many times that we’re doomed and the deadlines have come and gone with the doomsdayers not missing a beat. They’re like old timey Elmer Gantrys promising the apocalypse over and over again, with their hardcore true believers regularly showing up for the rapture over and over again no matter how many times the Four Horseman fail to turn up.
We haven’t even seen one horseman.
Back in the 70s, I remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. Then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. By the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, I was still wanting my ice age. It would be nice to have a white Christmas in LA.
So, where’s my damn ice age?
Oh right, only a climate denier – Climate, I deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. You evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half-century.
And they’re not even good at short-term prognostication. Heck, for several days Hurricane Dorian was supposed to slam head on into Florida and then…it didn’t. The Obamas just bought a $15 million pad on the beach – what’s that say about their faith in “science?” But don’t worry, the guys batting .000 so far will definitely get the temperature in 2129 right if we only just write them a huge check and transform ourselves from citizens to serfs.
That’s another big red flag – have you noticed how “science” always tells us that the only possible response to the climate hullabaloo is to give liberals exactly what they always wanted anyway? How lucky are the leftists to have had an existential problem drop in their laps where the only solution is to give them everything they could not otherwise convince us to give them? What a remarkable coincidence!
And what’s also weird is how nothing that we must do “right now no time to debate it’s a crisis think o’ the children” in any way inconveniences or calls for sacrifices from our climate crisis-pushing elite. Boy, they really scored with climate change – if they were going to manufacture a crisis in order to get the power and money they craved, how would they do it any differently?
Now, they might claim that they too will have to sacrifice to the Angry Weather Demon, but it’s unclear how. I suppose they might stop flying across the globe to climate finger-wagging festivals in private jets, but call me jaded for thinking that if it’s such a crisis today and they have not stopped doing it yet, they won’t stop jetting about down the road. Oh, but you will. You most definitely will stop flying and driving the vehicles you choose and eating cheeseburgers and using straws that don’t disintegrate into gummy sludge in your Dr. Pepper. But them? Pete Buttigieg explained away his zipping around in Gulfstreams as necessary because it is important for him to be pestering people in Des Moines. Bet you that pretty much everything our betters want to do will turn out to be “important.” And I’ll bet that nothing that you peasants want to do will.
One might think that if stopping carbon was important, you might want to explore nuclear power. But you would think wrong. After all, if there’s plenty of electrical power, the elite loses the political power that comes from divvying up a scarce resource. If they control the power, they control you. Cheap, plentiful power makes you freer, which is a bug, not a feature.
Oh, and those many millions of people in Middle America who directly or indirectly rely on fracking and the rest of the fossil fuel industry? Better learn to code or something, because your good job is history. Weird how all the sacrifice once again falls on those out in the hinterlands and not on the blue coastal city swells, huh? But you’ll be able to rest easy knowing that our moral superiors in Brooklyn and Alexandria and Santa Monica enjoyed showing you sweaty rubes who’s really the boss by impoverishing you. Because that, and not the weather in a century, is and always has been what the “climate change” hoax is really all about.
— Kurt Schlichter
I foolishly read the whole thing. I should have stopped after the assertion that science is a hoax, followed by a set of variations on the theme that greed is good and only patsies look out for anything other than their own immediate self-interest. I learned about altruism and deferred gratification in nursery school. Guess you weren’t listening.
disposableidentity, how many “billions of years” did it take to give us this paradise today?
And “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” are two different things.
Facts would be fun if you bothered to provide any. Unfortunately, you didn’t. You cut and pasted misleading and out of context speaking points to push your political position.
For example: you advocate that more CO2 must be better. WRONG. Anyone with elemental chemistry knowledge or even kitchen experience knows that quantity matters. You can’t allow a dramatic fast changing of chemical ratios without affecting the outcome. Or how about this: humans need water to live. So go get an ex-CIA asshole to waterboard you for a few days. Then tell us how much healthier you are thanks to the increased water consumption.
But then, we wouldn’t expect you to be able to read objectively. You refuse to connect the taxpayer costs of infrastructure repairs in the wake of extreme weather events to PROVEN changes in the atmosphere because you fear you might have to adopt more efficient ways to lead your life. That is pure selfishness, the only value that trumpets understand.
Great Scott! 1.2 Gigawatts
Like starkrealist, I’m waiting for the 1.21 Gigawatts, so I can fire up the DeLorean time machine to escape todays insanity and questionable future and go back in time to a spot where the world made a little more more sense!
“And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow, you are only a troubled guest on the dark Earth.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Yes, fake elections have real consequences. I share your disillusionment.
It’s too late now, but vindication came to the main Trump campaign election violation claims lobbed after Election Day.
A Michigan court ruled that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson broke the law by overstepping her authority when she issued unilateral changes for absentee ballots in the state. It all centered on voter signature verification. If she wanted to do that, she was constitutionally required to get the state legislature’s approval.
There was a reason why she didn’t pursue this route: Michigan’s state legislature is majority Republican. So, she tried this scheme, and it worked.
The damage is now done. Fauxident Dementia and Headboard Harris, puppets of the leftist establishment and their master China, are in office now. At least half of U.S. voters believe the U.S. Presidential election result is incorrect. It only took 42,844 “votes” to alter the outcome:
Barring the impossibility of correcting every broken states’ election integrity laws by the next national election, I suggest Republicans outdo the Democrats and play dirty – even dirtier than the Democrats. Win at all costs, no matter what. This is a new era. There’s no ROI for being the good guy. Obviously, no one cares about that anymore.
Of course, this ruling also brings into question whether Biden truly received over 80 million legal votes. A groper with dementia and no campaign to speak of got more votes than any other candidate in history? Please, get real.
Gee, how could the U.S. presidential election not have been on the up and up when New Data Show 92,367 Mail Ballots in Nevada Went to Wrong Addresses — in a Single County.
Biden “beat” Trump in Nevada by 33,596 “votes.”
What a fucking joke.
Biden couldn’t be more illegitimate and, if he didn’t have dementia, he’d know it.
Minor detail. The Nevada ballots were not “sent to the wrong address.” They were sent to the address the voter gave Clark County when they registered. Thousands of those people had moved without notifying the county, so their ballots were returned because the addressee did not live there. Obviously, none of the undelivered and returned unused ballots affected the outcome of the election.
There were safeguards that would have made it extremely difficult for anyone other than the registered voter to use the ballot, and essentially impossible for two votes to be cast under the same registered name. If unauthorized use of the mailed ballots had been widespread, there would have been many cases when the voter appeared in person to vote after a stolen ballot had already been cast in his name. There was no such pattern apparent to the neutral election officials or to either set of party poll watchers. If the Republicans had seen that in November, we would have heard of it before March.
“Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner”
NYTimes, 2012
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html
Brutal, you are flatly misstating what the opinion by a Michigan Court of Claims judge says. (The Secretary of State could still appeal that decision, so it is not a final judgment.) In any case, the court did not consider whether the Secretary of State guidance was unconstitutional or even if it was inconsistent with state law. You are incorrect when you say that the court found that the guidance substantively exceeded the authority of the Secretary of State. This case was decided on purely procedural grounds (what conservatives tend to call “a technicality”).
The court never reached any of those substantive issues because it found that the guidance constituted a “rule” that required prior public notice under the state Administrative Procedure Act or express invocation of the emergency exception provisions in that Act. The Secretary of State did not invoke the Act because it saw the provision of election guidance to be a normal part of the job and not a rule making activity.
The “rule” complained of was advice that there should be a presumption that ballot signatures were valid, rather than that they were not. Unclear cases should not be resolved in favor of disenfranchising a registered voter because he signs his name like a doctor and not like a pensmanship teacher. The County Clerk who brought the case (along with the State Republican Party) agreed that the guidance had probably not changed many, if any, votes in his county because that was just common sense. His objection was to being told how to do his job without the chance to object in advance under the APA.
In short, the only mistake that the court found was that the Secretary of State called his advice “guidance” rather than calling his guidance “advice.” The suggestion that the advice was a formal rule required compliance with the rule making procedures of the APA. There was no suggestion that any of the votes allowed under the guidance should be disallowed, much less that the whole election should be thrown out.
I think the real bottom line to all of this is we need election reform and preferably some national standard when it comes to the deadline for mailing ballots. I think the old postmark for mailed in ballots would work just fine under law.
Having 50+ varieties of what does and does not count for a national vote is never going to get the job done.
I think you should worry about a national vote counting machine because, as Stalin said, “only the counter, not the counts, matters.” So I am OK with local counts because localized election fraud can then be, theoretically, easily remedied. All electronic machines and counting should be eliminated because, as has been shown by researchers, they can be easily monkeywrencher rather quickly. Not sure if it can be done remotely though. Bring back paper ballots counted in public as before.
Oh, you have the virus and, you’re from where? Oh, Guatemala…sure, c’mon in.
Any you from Pennsylvania…I know you are returning to HOME, from out of the country, but you’re Covid-positive. I’m sorry, you will need to return from where you came.
Thanks JoBi.
Wind and solar will keep coal and natural gas around forever. Something has to do the job when these “idiot” forms are on long siestas.
Climate change and democracy deniers. [sigh]. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. ☹️
It both saddens and disturbs me how conspiracy theory is substituted for facts, critical thinking, and respect for the vast majority of the global scientific community and academia.
It’s interesting now that surveys show somewhere on the order of 98% of scientists (the actual experts on the issue, people who have spent their entire lives studying the data) believe that humanity caused climate change is indisputably occurring at a rapid, life-threatening rate––conspiracy theorists seem to have pivoted.
Now the argument is they’re worried about plants?… Global spikes in CO2 are now good for plants? Nice pivot.
Would these same people prefer that an ICU doctor or a beet farmer take care of their child or spouse the next time they’re seriously ill?
Would they choose someone on the verge of bankruptcy advise them on investments?
Would they tear up their checks from the government because they don’t share the politics of the person who signed them?
If raw sewage began to back up into your sinks and showers, would you trust a roofer or a plumber to tell you exactly what to do to protect your home and family?
Conspiracy theory is dangerous because it’s not “theory” in the true critical sense of the word (supported by and based on generally agreed upon facts). It’s simply something to try and arrest the fear we all have of not being in control of frightening events.
Rather than acknowledge the asteroid hurtling toward Earth will return it to the Stone Age, conspiracy theory would have us believe it was going to create another Garden of Eden.
We all make up stories to ease the fears of children, but it’s dangerous to do that with adults.
Yeah, life is scary. Bad stuff happens to good and bad people. Making up a story about why something bad is happening is human nature. We’ve been doing it since we were nomadic tribes sitting around the fire at night. 🔥
What’s disheartening is that just when we start to get some traction on ignorance (the state of simply not knowing fact), suddenly a movement to return to making up stories arrives.
If the truth of what is happening in our collective lives is too scary, we create a new narrative to explain it’s a good thing. Makes sense. Nobody wants to feel the bad thing. And we simians are deeply uncomfortable sitting in the question, in nuance. We prefer clear and easy answers. Even wrong answers are better than no answers at all.
The other problem with conspiracy theory is that it’s another opioid epidemic.
It’s completely addictive and easy to find, even when you run out of doctors willing to prescribe it. It fits the definition of a cult. And just like every cult you’ve ever heard of, it can waste decades of your life if you get snarled in it.
And like a cult, many people need deprogramming once they escape from it. Even when their brains tell them, “you can live and thrive without the stuff, man,” there will always be a part of you that wonders. Addicts are not bad people because they’re addicts. Still, the best they can often hope for is to be a “recovering addict.” Once addicted, it never really leaves you.
I quit smoking cigarettes over 20 years ago and still dream about them.
We need to be vigilant where we let our brains lead us these days.
We should be carefully vetting who we listen to. In our natural lack of expertise, we should be playing the overwhelming odds in our favor. We should listen to tens of millions of individual experts who may tell us what we want don’t want to hear.
Scientists and researchers are not this homogenized group that conspiracy theory paints them as.
They’re well-educated (and perennially educating), enlightened, critical thinking people who argue fiercely amongst themselves. They challenge each other constantly in speeches, papers, and research. They try to prove each other wrong every day using the scientific method. You can’t just say someone is wrong. You have to prove it to your peers. You have to prove it using facts and results which can be repeated.
We have access to the greatest library in the history of the world. We shouldn’t need to keep making stuff up. We need to have more courage in facing the messy truths of today as adults.
We have to be better than this.
Don’t mean to sound overly dramatic, but the survival of our species may well depend upon it.
~
Hey scienceoverstoryguy,
You said:
“Scientists and researchers are not this homogenized group that conspiracy theory paints them as.
They’re well-educated (and perennially educating), enlightened, critical thinking people who argue fiercely amongst themselves. They challenge each other constantly in speeches, papers, and research. They try to prove each other wrong every day using the scientific method. You can’t just say someone is wrong. You have to prove it to your peers. You have to prove it using facts and results which can be repeated.”
LOL! Have you read the climate-gate emails. Start here:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html
One of my favorites:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer‐review literature is!”
– Phil Jones, climate scientist.
Climate change ‘solutions’ are so important to the rich, wealth foundations, and socialists, that there was something like 11 or so ‘independent investigations’ of the emails to exonerate the ‘scientists’ and their science.
Have they ever done this for other email hacks such as Podesta’s or Hillary’s? No. Why?
Because climate change is being used to contract and converge the economies of the world. Rich nations will contract while LDCs with converge up.
This is all being led by the UN which current is run by Antonio Guterez who is a current of former president (or VP) of socialistinternational.org.
I am impressed by these large projects. Yay! Unfortunately a huge power plant that shuts down at sunset creates a new set of problems including an unreliable grid. Electricity storage will help. I am hopeful that Ambri — a company out of MIT that makes liquid metal batteries — will succeed with their large scale pilot plant — and produce grid-scale storage that is much bigger and cheaper than lithium batteries can do. In the mean while these companies call themselves green but in order to run their server farms after dark they burn natural gas produced by fracking. We have to go much farther to find solutions.
Here’s a good way to prevent people from voting twice or more when voting in person. Fingerprint scanning. Simply require a fingerprint scan before voting that is stored in a database along with everybody else who is voting during a voting period and use computers to see if that fingerprint has already been scanned at another location.
No ID needed = less voter fraud. Not a perfect solution but would make voting in person more honest.
It would also lower the occurrence of bad weather events since a fingerprint voting check would mean far less liberals driving around to different voting precincts to vote. Less driving means less deadly plant food being spewed in the air causing capitalistic’, I mean ‘climate change’ induced bad weather.’