Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Greenpeace Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That too, but I think the real issue here is the totally binary view of the world that so many people now completely accept as normal. Somebody must be 100% right, which automatically means that the other side of the argument is 100% wrong. The bent in this article exploits the growing tendency to see the world in these black and white terms. Far more likely, both parties are spinning the facts to benefit their self-interested positions. This won't be a popular way of looking at it, since it is emotionally unsatisfying and doesn't lend itself to taking sides, but it's usually the most accurate way.
I've been around long enough now and seen enough to now know that everything has ulterior political motivations and is divorced from logic or common sense. Greenpeace has an agenda and attacking Apple advances that agenda, whether or not there is any logical basis for the attack at all.
This MO, of twisting things to advance an agenda with no regard for intellectual honesty whatsoever, is agnostic, too. Meaning, it's not limited to any political parties, genders, races, ages, religions, regions, etc. I mention that because although my comment is clearly within the context of the story, i.e. about Greenpeace, it's not meant to be solely viewed as applying to Greenpeace. About the only limitation you could say is that this applies to humans.
This MO, of twisting things to advance an agenda with no regard for intellectual honesty whatsoever, is agnostic, too. Meaning, it's not limited to any political parties, genders, races, ages, religions, regions, etc. I mention that because although my comment is clearly within the context of the story, i.e. about Greenpeace, it's not meant to be solely viewed as applying to Greenpeace. About the only limitation you could say is that this applies to humans.
I see no issue with GreenPeace they are waiting to see if it really happens how Apple is predicting. Oh the fangirls are mad that their Church is been questioned. 
Its a company it lies to get PR if Apple does what it says then all is going to be good if not I could care less as most here would. Enjoy the ride, make money, play with the toys and when we run out of natural resources I figure one of two things will happen, one we will adapt or two many will suffer just not me.
Its a company it lies to get PR if Apple does what it says then all is going to be good if not I could care less as most here would. Enjoy the ride, make money, play with the toys and when we run out of natural resources I figure one of two things will happen, one we will adapt or two many will suffer just not me.
While I agree with Greenpeace in not fulling trusting Apple's numbers and honestly I would not trust Apple numbers at any more than a starting point. I would want to interdependently verify them as one should. Greenpeace is failing to do that critical fact.
I am willing to bet Apple's stated numbers are overly optimistic but at the same time Greenpeace's numbers are way out of line and chances are they way they are basing it is scaling up a small site data center usage to Apple's size. Not a good way of doing it as chances are the small sight would not have the best type of cooling in place and would have more over head for the system.
Also it seems Greenpeace's own numbers are out of line with other large data centers.
I am willing to bet Apple's stated numbers are overly optimistic but at the same time Greenpeace's numbers are way out of line and chances are they way they are basing it is scaling up a small site data center usage to Apple's size. Not a good way of doing it as chances are the small sight would not have the best type of cooling in place and would have more over head for the system.
Also it seems Greenpeace's own numbers are out of line with other large data centers.
I think a lot of it stems from how Apple has handled their customers over the years. They have built a loyal following by offering top quality products and backing it up with almost flawless service. That builds loyalty, much like what you often see with people and their favorite sports team.
Treat people right and they'll have your back.
I'll trust the back-up generators. My father works for a data center as achitect. The big Diesels they have and the battery power have to cover 100% if power is interrupted for any reason. Takes 50ms to switch and the power supplies of the computers don't even notice. Also, has 3 seperate power lines just in case there is a short in one. If you want to know what the true possible Max is, go with the backup. There is always some reserve in it though. You don't run those to max capacity. Actually, everytime you put another rack onto the circuit, you have a pulling surge about 1kW higher than after the machine runs. For that alone you need extra capacity.
Its time for Apple to litigate (i.e., sue Greenpeace).
Alternatively, Apple could offer them to send a team in under the conditions of a NDA ... and then when they violate that NDA ... THEN sue them.
Greenpeace is all about people taking personal responsibility for their actions - - but here they are purposefully violating their own principles, which makes them all hypocrites.
-hh
Last edited by a moderator:
Greenpeace is engaging in both libel and fraud. Someone should assert a legal claim on them and maybe even a criminal investigation. It doesn't seem extreme until you look at the consequences they are causing, and the tactics they are employing.
Apple is a public company. They resist making any statements in public and when they do make statements make every effort to make them as accurate as possible under penalty of SEC. They can be spanked for lying or even being pretty far off the mark on server power usage levels, once they have made a statement at all.
Greenpeace is under no such risk of pain.
Rocketman
Apple is a public company. They resist making any statements in public and when they do make statements make every effort to make them as accurate as possible under penalty of SEC. They can be spanked for lying or even being pretty far off the mark on server power usage levels, once they have made a statement at all.
Greenpeace is under no such risk of pain.
Rocketman
Last edited:
This company lost what credibility it had years ago. Their fanaticism and inability to appreciate progress led them towards illogicality.
I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple.
----------
----------
And of course Apple wants none of that!
Last edited by a moderator:
Greenpeace has already lost all relevancy in my opinion, and has been declining in stature for over a decade now. I'm not alone.
And lets not forget how much Greenpeace maligned the original iPhone as being toxic, only to later admit that they totally exaggerated those claims in order to grab headlines.
They should have stuck with whales.
And lets not forget how much Greenpeace maligned the original iPhone as being toxic, only to later admit that they totally exaggerated those claims in order to grab headlines.
They should have stuck with whales.
And these corporations always lie because they want to make more money. Weird that you'd err on the side of the money-grubbers and not the people that actually want us to have clean air and water.
Contrary to what some of you are saying, Greenpeace is not interested in eliminating all electricity or whatever other nonsense you people are spouting.
Yes, ipads and ipods are great (I have one of each), but let's not get ridiculous.
Greenpeace is not actually composed of environmental crazies, as you put it).
The reality is much worse and more sordid:
Greenpeace is a fundrasing organization that exploits the general population's concern about the environment as a lever to get them to give GP their money.
Greenpeace long ago made fundraising a much more important goal than actually having a positive impact on the environment. Fudging the numbers on Apple is just one symptom of that.
If they cared about the environment, they would be plastering Apple with praise and certifying the data center as a gold-standard installation (or whatever) because the NC data center is far ahead of the curve. They'd do this to put pressure on other companies to keep up. But they do the opposite, because bashing Apple is a sure way to get garner attention, which helps fundraising.
Apple is going green and still making huge profits. It would seem that Greenpeace would be better off siting them as a good example of what's possible.
Greenpeace's power estimate for Apple's data center is based on the amount of money Apple spent on there, and a guess at power consumption per dollar that they do not seem to justify. A fairer and more realistic estimate would be to call Apple's 20MW estimate a "goal" and Apple's permitted backup power generation capability of 41 MW as an upper bound.
Greenpeace's power estimate for Apple's data center is based on the amount of money Apple spent on there, and a guess at power consumption per dollar that they do not seem to justify. A fairer and more realistic estimate would be to call Apple's 20MW estimate a "goal" and Apple's permitted backup power generation capability of 41 MW as an upper bound.