They clearly are making billions of dollars ripping off the gullible Joe Average who hasn’t the sense to listen to the real people in the know. Those hard working corporate types who sacrificed everything to bring you light cigarettes, 93% fat free foods, cheap credit, clean coal, life saving DDT, and safer cars despite the obstacles thrown in their path by greedy individuals like Ralph Nader.

Personally I like wearing shorts so global warming is a good thing, and any species that can’t afford air conditioning in my opinion has no right to exist and should make way for plush toys from Walmart.

I certainly agree with you when you say, “Science is supposed to based on fact, scientific method, deduction… not consensus.” Sadly I don’t think Oil executives would agree with you on this issue.
But I have to express some serious doubt when you say, ” . . . for every scientist you can provide that claim climate change in [sic] human-induced, I can provide one that that says it isn’t.” The overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge that the basic ideas of what is commonly referred to as “global warming” are quite valid.
Perhaps you should say, ” . . . for every 100 scientist you can provide, that claim climate change is human-induced, I can provide 2 or 3 that that says it isn’t. And one of them does not get paid by an oil company!”

Companies that fly their CEOs to Tokyo by private jet only to sign an agreement that they will reduce emissions by 20% before 2050 have done extremely well by Stoned-field’s standards. Perhaps their score card should be called ‘Green-wash Counts’ instead of ‘Climate Counts.’

I agree with the above comments, its groups like Climate Counts that jeopardize the environmental movement with their cheap headline grabbing stunts.

Strawmen aside, one assumes Climate Counts have decided that failing to account for and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a social ill, and are campaigning on the issue. Which they have a right to do: whether from the best of motives, or not, is immaterial. Their style is simplistic, populist, a bit sanctimonious and therefore unappealing to me, but I am probably not the target audience (no point preaching to the converted).

Apple may make a profit or a loss, neither is a crime, but they are required to account for their financial activities and file tax returns, etc. If Apple have pollution licences, they presumably have to meet those requirements as well. There has been considerable rearguard action from potential losers under any new GHG reduction/carbon tax or carbon trading regime to avoid admitting GHG emissions as pollutants (climate change is unproven, is good for you, etc) but this is little different from similar tactics re cigarette smoke or ozone depleting substances.

Via a strawman arguments, you are confusing criminal law proceedings with corporate reporting and corporate social responsibility.

This is fuzzy logic, CC decides that:

1) Human-induced Climate Change exists
2) It is a crime
3) Apple (or any company) is Guilty

And it is up to the accused to defend itself

Napoleanic law aside, what if the same logic were used to publicly (in your town hall) accuse you, individually, of this same “crime”. Would not the burden fall on you to expend your time snd treasure to disprove the accusation and establish your innocence?

“The same is true of the global warming debate. There is no consensus among climate scientists. When it is scientifically evaluated and the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists are in agreement, then it will be time to evaluate what, if anything, humankind needs to do about the climate.?

That is why the precautionary principle deliberately shifts the burden of proof onto the potential polluter, on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations (the EEB position on the PP).

In the case of climate change, fringe views expressed here notwithstanding, the preponderance of evidence does not favour denial: IPCC 4 indicates this overwhelmingly. At this stage the area of reasonable doubt re the externalities of climate change is remarkably slim. The most significant question to be resolved now is the level at which carbon emissions will be taxed, or the framework in which carbon credits will be traded.

“If CC can’t speak to Apple’s GHG emissions or other metrics that actually relate to Apple’s environmental activities, then CC has nothing useful to say.”

While i indicated that this was a weakness in the ‘progress toward reduction’ framework CC use, the responsibility to prepare inventory of GHG emissions lies with Apple (and the other companies). The call for inventory, reduction target and actual reductions is quite legitimate, even if CC’s summary scorecard statements are oversimplified.

“No, this accusation, as many of us have pointed out, is just another tool of the fascists to try and blackmail America’s industry and way of life to degenerate to their ideal.”

I’d forgotten: climate change is an international jewish-communist plot … and the media are in on it!

I work in the nuclear industry in radiation safety. There are two main schools of thought on the harmful effects of radiation exposure.

One theory holds that somatic and heritable biological effects of chronic ionizing radiation exposure do not occur below a threshold value.

The other major belief is that there is no threshold and all ionizing radiation exposure poses some risk.

Intelligent, educated men have heated discussions defending their side of that argument – discussions that make a Mac/Windows flame war look like a Sunday sermon.

The same is true of the global warming debate. There is no consensus among climate scientists. When it is scientifically evaluated and the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists are in agreement, then it will be time to evaluate what, if anything, humankind needs to do about the climate.

Between now and then it might be useful to establish what the effluent streams are, and how best to mitigate those streams should they prove to be harmful.

Actual reductions in all kinds of waste, including unnecessary energy usage, should always be a priority. If CC can’t speak to Apple’s GHG emissions or other metrics that actually relate to Apple’s environmental activities, then CC has nothing useful to say.

If they have nothing useful to say, they should say that in the mathematical equivalent of words it takes to say nothing useful.

When you choose to single out prominent companies and pillory them for failure to run a convincing line of BS, you hurt your own credibility – or possibly establish it.