Re-name “Earth Hour” to “Energy Hour” and base it on sound science

Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is a serious mistake

Ottawa, Canada, March 28, 2012: “Earth Hour is yet another symbol of how climate activists have hijacked the environmental movement,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Most people do not realize that, when they turn out their lights for sixty minutes on March 31, they are not supporting science-based environmental protection. Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly helping prop up one of the most threatening scientific hoaxes in history—the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are known to be causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor said, “It’s important not to waste energy, and to generate it as economically as possible in terms both of cost and depletion of natural resources. Those are the right reasons for mass gestures like Earth Hour. However, it is a mistake to promote such initiatives as ‘saving the planet’ by reducing emissions of CO2 when so many qualified scientists do not support the hypothesis that man-made CO2 can or does cause dangerous global warming. As the public come to realize that they have been misled about the reasons for Earth Hour, much of the incentive to engage in constructive behaviour will evaporate.”

In announcing his support for Earth Hour, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”

“If we are going to demonstrate solidarity with those who lack adequate energy supplies, then we need to really feel what they feel, not just turn off a few lights,” said ICSC energy issues advisor, Bryan Leyland of Auckland, New Zealand. “Earth Hour should be renamed Energy Hour and citizens encouraged to use as little energy as possible for 60 minutes so that they can get a sense of what societies without adequate power are actually like. For this is exactly where we are headed if governments continue to yield to climate activists and try to replace reliable, base load generation with expensive, intermittent and diffuse energy sources such as wind and solar power.”

“Climate campaigners will undoubtedly once again cite the public’s participation in Earth Hour as broad support for combating climate change,” predicted Professor Ole Humlum of the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway and author of the popular climate science Website http://www.climate4you.com/. “Some commentators have therefore suggested using as much energy as possible during the hour to demonstrate opposition to the climate scare. A more constructive approach would be to change the name and stated purpose of the program to one based on the realities of science and the world we actually live in. Energy Hour would stand the test of time. Earth Hour, based on misguided climate change fears, will not.”


The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.  

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.


For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org, or contact any of the following ICSC representatives:

In North America:

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. – thermofluids)

Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition

P.O. Box 23013

Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

Canada

Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net

Phone: 613-728-9200

ICSC Webpage: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393

In Australia:

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ

Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition

Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne

Marine Geophysical Laboratory

James Cook University

Townsville, Queensland, 4811

Australia

Email:  bob.carter@jcu.edu.au

Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139

Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268

ICSC Webpage: http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394

In New Zealand:

Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, consulting engineer

Energy Issues Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition

Auckland 1022

New Zealand

Email: bryanleyland@mac.com

Phone: +64 9 940 7047; mobile: +64 21 978 996

ICSC Webpage: http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=395

OR

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP

Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition

Hauraki, North Shore City 0622

New Zealand

Email: terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz

Phone: +64 9 4863859 – Mobile: +64 274836688

ICSC Webpage: http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=432

In Europe:

Professor Ole Humlum, PhD

Science Advisory Board member, International Climate Science Coalition

Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography

Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

E-mail: ole.humlum@geo.uio.no

Phone: +47 79 02 33 00 (department); +47 79 02 33 20 (direct).  Fax: +47 79 02 33 01.

Webpage: http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/olepersonal.htm

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Sydney Morning Herald is asking readers whether they are going to turn the lights off for Earth Hour or leave them on. My answer:

Because co2 is the beginning of the food chain and is healthful for all life on earth, I will do my part to help the planet by turning on every light. With the sun having gone quiet and global cooling imminent, the minuscule warming effect of the extra co2 will also provide some benefit, not enough to offset the much stronger solar effect, but better than nothing. Please do the same!

You can send your own to loadeddog@sunherald.com.au. 150 words max. “Earth Hour” in the subject line.

Paul

Earth hour is a great dry run for the impending energy crunch to come in the not too distant future here in the UK. Once all our coal fired capacity is ended by legislation from Brussels environmentalists up and down the land will be the first to complain about power cuts as they won’t be able to log onto the various climate related websites which they love to read forecasting the death of the planet.

Peter Miller

It’s all about trying to create a warm fuzzy feeling that “you are doing your bit” to help.
At least the act of turning off a few lights is harmless, unlike all the other economically damaging stuff being proposed to combat the non-existent problem of man made global warming.
I thought about turning on all the lights and electrical appliances in my home to mark Earth/Energy Hour, but decided that was a petty response to someone trying to guilt trip me.
If all the many tens of billions of dollars currently being wasted on the West’s ‘climate science’ industry was used instead to provide electricity generation facilities in the Third World, then the problem of so many people being without power would be much alleviated. Any chance of that happening? Absolutely none – there are far too many comfortable lifestyles amongst the CAGW cult leadership which need protecting.

A Lovell

Tim Blair has a great article on this subject, called ‘Come on baby light my fire’.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…light-my-fire…/story-e6frezz0-.
I shan’t be able to follow his example as I can’t afford to. However, I shall most certainly not turn anything down or off!

Huth

There are a lot of power cuts where I live (because of weather intolerant power cables that keep being damaged) so we are forced to do without power for many more hours than one per year. It’s a bloody nuisance! If we didn’t have a stove that burns coal as well as wood, we’d be cold as well as having to do without light and all the other useful things that need power. Perhaps if more people had to do without power for several days in the middle of winter, they’d rethink. Or maybe just think at all.

AllanJ

If we are going to demonstrate solidarity with the 20% of the people who have no electricity we aught to support programs to help them get electricity. That means making electricity cheaper and more widely distributed. All this “feel what they feel” symbolism tends to do just the opposite.
The ICSC is trying to move in the right direction, I wish them well. But I fear the green movement has so dominated “earth hour” publicity that participation will be widely seen as support for reduction in fossil fuel use, increased regulation of coal fired electric generation, and increased use of expensive alternative generators.
Rather than try to change the name of “earth hour” let’s ridicule the whole “feel what they feel” idea. WUWT is already a powerful voice in advocating sensible energy policies. That is how to really help those who do not have access to electricity.
More people will have access to electricity if we “drill baby drill”, produce more coal fired electric generators, build more dams, and build more nuclear plants. Sure, work on research to find greener ways to produce cheap electricity. But we should stop government subsidies that push alternatives into the market before they are economically competitive.
The green movement is a disaster for the poor around the world. Let’s not let the greens get away with these meaningless gestures of support for those they hurt the most.

Alan the Brit

What the PDREU needs is a harsh winter when all the lights go out for a few days, no electricity to fire up central heating boilers, like it did a couple of years ago, Britain got off lightly this time round, eastern europe didn’t, again! It certainly brings home the importance of modern day living to survive the elements, but then the activists don’t want us to survive, do they? Blow Earth Day, it’s so pointless as it is! Reality checks are so essential for people, I know it’s not pleasant, but how would they feel if it was their son/daughter/mother/father/sister/brother/significant other, on a ife-support machine when the power goes & the back-up generators fail to kick in? If things like this are planned they are nothing more than a feelgood factor, whereas real tragedy has more trauma & effect & significance, although I would not wish it upon Al Gore et al, not so sure it would be reciprocated though!

Kelvin Vaughan

If all the lights on earth go out then everyone will be delighted!
(I hope it dosen’t apply to vehicles.)
Just thought! we can make a lot of money out of this. We can have an accident in the dark and then sue the organisers!

tango

the watermelon heads don,t know if the lights are on or off due to to much pot smoke in the air

SPreserv

A Lovell says:
March 29, 2012 at 1:05 am
Tim Blair has a great article on this subject, called ‘Come on baby light my fire’.

A working link here:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/come-on-baby-light-my-fire-but-watch-the-cat/story-e6frezz0-1226309663925

Mike McMillan

Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”
Far better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. How foolish these world leaders are, and how foolish we are to let them lead.

Bloke down the pub

If Earth hour became compulsory and the power companies pulled the plug, everyone would become much more aware of how much we depend on energy and wouldn’t be so willing to replace it with sunbeams and fairy dust.

Keeping in mind the “sound science” reference, and knowing that we’ve all been watching events unfold for the past decade here that were NOT based on same, I found it interesting that the same problem arose in a different field, that of cancer research.
“But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers.
George Robertson of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia previously worked at Merck on neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s. While at Merck, he also found many academic studies that did not hold up.
“It drives people in industry crazy. Why are we seeing a collapse of the pharma and biotech industries? One possibility is that academia is not providing accurate findings,” he said.
Sound familiar?
JimB
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/28/in-cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-up/#ixzz1qV753WgX

“Earth Hour is yet another symbol of how climate activists have hijacked the environmental movement…”
…and the environmental movement was itself hijacked from “traditional” conservationists decades ago.

richardscourtney

Friends:
Concerning ‘Earth Hour’, the article reports Tom Harris (Canada) saying;
““Most people do not realize that, when they turn out their lights for sixty minutes on March 31, they are not supporting science-based environmental protection.”
And Bob Carter (Australia) saying;
“Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring.”
And Tom Leavey (New Zealand) saying;
“it is a mistake to promote such initiatives (i.e. such as ‘Earth Hour’) as ‘saving the planet’ by reducing emissions of CO2 when so many qualified scientists do not support the hypothesis that man-made CO2 can or does cause dangerous global warming.”
But they are all considering the mistaken idea that ‘Earth Hour’ has anything to do with science, reason and/or logic. The real reason for ‘Earth Hour’ is explicitly stated by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon who the article reports has asserted,
“We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”
So, there you have it. The purpose of ‘Earth Hour’ is a pointless and futile activity which has the intention to achieve nothing, to affect nothing, and to help nobody, but it may make its participants feel smug that they have meaningless “solidarity” with the poor.
Such activities as ‘Earth Hour’ deserve to be reviled as being the hypocritical nonsense that they are.
Richard

Dr Burns

My letter to the editor, published today:
———————————–
Earth Hour has an irony. It should carry the caption “keeping people in the dark about climate”. I’ve had countless arguments with climate alarmists. I always ask one simple question “what is the evidence for man caused global warming ?”. Alarmists always go weak at the knees or run away, because there is no evidence. There is just a shonky theory held aloft by political hot air.

East Timor a poor country who are just getting an oil windfall have decided to make their top priority providing electricity to villages outside capital. To that end they are building a coal fired power station.
When they ask villagers in Africa what they want, 2 things always top the list, electricity, and a school.
At root, the problem with the greenie environmentalists is that they have no experience or concept of not living with the benefits of a developed world civilization and they have no concept of how it works.

richard verney

Paul says:
March 29, 2012 at 12:47 am
//////////////////////////////////
This morning 3 of the largest UK energy suppliers announced that they were pulling out of Nuclear in the UK. So if there is a pull back in coal and nuclear and no development of Shale Gas, things look very bleak on the energy front for the UK.
Meanwhile in the States, yesterday, gas prices have hit a 10 year low. The States are pushing ahead with Shale Gas and are set to become one of the largest energy suppliers in the world. This development will continue to keep gas prices low in the States and it explains why the US gas industry is campaigning so hard for EPA to effectively ban coal, ie., to give a market for all the new gas that is coming on stream. The low gas prices in the States is helping the domestic gas consumer with their energy bills. Quite a startling comparison with the UK.
The low gas price in the States may also promote new developments in the car industry. The prospects for gas powered cars looks good and these cars make much more sense both environmentally and practically than do electric cars.

richard verney

I agree that the environmental groups having aligned themselves with CAGW are likely to suffer long term damage to their movements once the CAGW scam is fully revealed. People will be paying for this fiasco for decades to come, and this is bound to cause them to view enviromentalists in general with suspicion.
I have no intention of supporting Earth hour. I will not be switching off any energy to support some pathetic pr stunt. That said, I will not deliberately waste any energy either, but weather permitting, perhaps it would be a good day to do the washing.

LazyTeenager

Dr Burns says
, because there is no evidence.
—————
The creationists use this argument a lot when referring to The Theory of Evolution. Seems they close their eyes ever time evidence comes along, so as to maintain the appearance of sincerity.

Jessie

I would also refer readers to this simply excellent comment in WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/earth-hour-is-it-worth-the-effort/#comment-918732
and also this link to Ross McKitrick’s great paper on the subject of hypocrisy of Earth Hour
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/earth-hour-is-it-worth-the-effort/#comment-919241
The comments resonated with me. Having lived much of my life in northern Australia where mothers rubbed liberal amounts of Vix Vapour Rub into their childrens’s open and copiously infected skin sores in effort to both stave of the nightly mosquitoes and in the absence of a rational health service, where a family of 4-5 each lived in one bedroom of a three bedroom house and where there was no hot water, or insufficient solar powerered water to shower, wash clothing or children. And the jerry cans, flown in by fixed wing, filled with diesel instead of for washing machines, store and household refrigerators, mechanics workshop and fans at the school and in the houses, were used to fuel the generator that chugged from sunset to dawn (in the tropics) to power the outside spotlights to keep the sorcery at bay…………………. it truly was a frightening and shortened 24 hours for these people. And the children. Those that owned the small generator and the network of cables and paid for the fuel, owned the [miserable] lives of many.

PaulH

Donna Laframboise, exposes the trans-national corporations behind the idea of “Earth Hour”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/26/the-wealthy-corporations-behind-earth-hour/

AllenC

Celebrate human achievement during Earth Hour and turn on every electrical appliance you can find!

Patrick Plemmons

In support of the Gweenies, Aerosmith and, wait for it, Cheap Trick, are currently on their “Global Warming” tour. Cheap Trick indeed.

R Barker

Economical use of resources and efficient use of energy are always commendable goals. How WELL people use resources is a much better measure of stewardship than how LITTLE is used.
Waste and inefficiency is rarely, if ever, commendable. It is sheer folly to think that using less energy resulting from the high cost of ineffective, politically- inspired solutions will lead to a better future.

Frank K.

I tell you what…I’ll turn off my lights for Earth Energy Hour if NASA, NOAA, NCAR, GFDL, ORNL, etc. turn off their computers (especially those servers/clusters running useless climate simulations) for one hour. I doubt they will, just like they refuse to stop using fossil fuels while simultaneously trying ruin the lives, jobs, and reputations of those in the oil and gas industries, who everyday are working hard to bring us energy to make our lives better.

Brian Johnson uk

In support of the Gweenies, Aerosmith and, wait for it, Cheap Trick, are currently on their “Global Warming” tour. Cheap Trick indeed.
Shouldn’t that be Gweenies, Airwoesmith and Cheap Twick? The wimps.

In announcing his support for Earth Hour, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”
***
As I’ve said before, how can they reconsile the fact that we just had a complete day added to the calendar (Leap Day), and that the extra 24 hours negates the last 24 years of “Earth Day”.
Also, after Hurricane Katrina, my house power was off for a full month.
I think I’m caught up for the next century…

Coach Springer

Having an “hour” of any kind is persuasion PR. Question the necessity and effectiveness of any “hour.” It’s likely vague and likely political. You get people for something nearly meaningless as support for a collection of societal forcings and commercial exploitations. For example, “I’m Green, so give me your money and I will use it to throw African farmers off their land so I can pretend to plant a forest.” Or, “I’m Green and I support X, so you must too.” In a decade or so, you get a government agency running the country. To paraphrase a current series of commercials, “Don’t get a government agency running the whole country or you’ll end up in a roadside ditch.”
I was going to say an “hour” should be saved for a real crisis, but then a real crisis never requires an “hour” to raise awareness.

Alan D McIntire

Years ago I read an article in “Scientific American” called
“Goldilocks and the Three Planets”
“This is the complete carbon cycle: rainwater removes CO2 from the
atmosphere and puts it in the crust, and volcanic action releases CO2
from the crust and puts it back in the atmosphere.” The article went
on to argue that the earth has a natural thermostat: When temperatures
are warm, there is more rain, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
When temperatures are cool there is less rain. CO2 builds up, warming
the planet until there is a rough balance.
AGWers ascribing 100% of the increase to humans and my familiarity with
the Goldilocks argument made me think of an analogy. I admit I’m a
layman. I know nothing of atmospheric chemistry, but I AM familiar
with getting older, getting less exercise, and putting on weight. The
CO2 naturally occurring in the atmosphere is my body weight. At one
point my body is in balance- I consume and burn the same amount of
calories each day and maintain a steady weight. I then discover
blueberry pie-fossil fuel, and consume an additional 150 kCAL slice of
pie each day. Since 3000 additional kiloCalories puts on a pound, A
CAGWer would assume that I would gain 1 additional pound every 20
days, or 18 pounds a year, or 720 pounds in 40 years. I DID run that
experiment over 40 years. Needless to say I didn’t gain 720 pounds
between the age of 20 and my current age of 60- more like 30 pounds –
from 190 to 220. Carrying that extra weight burned additional calories
and my body quickly reached an equilibrium at a somewhat higher
weight.
The same argument will work with our atmosphere. If we were able to
continue burning the same amount of fossil fuel each year, atmospheric
CO2 would not increase indefinitely, but would reach a somewhat higher
equilibrium. The question to be answered is, what fraction of earth’s
calorie intake is CO2? CAGWers would argue that we’re currently a 97
pound inactive weakling, burning only 1200 kCAL a day- in that case
consuming that 150 kCAL pie will result in a significant weight
increase. If they were right, cutting back 20%, 30%, or 40% wouldn’t cut it. The only way to stop AGW would be to cut CO2 production by humans 100%, putting us back in the stone age.
In reality, the earth is a 250 pound pro football player
during the regular season – consuming 3000 kilocalories a day. That
additional slice of blueberry pie will have a negligible effect on his
weight.
Arguing that 100% of the increase from pre industrial times is
due to humans is equivalent to the argument that I now weigh 720 lbs.
Both are silly- A. McIntire

Jimmy Haigh
Wade

In announcing his support for Earth Hour, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”

I have a better idea. Why don’t we provide electricity to those 20% of people without it! Instead of lowering ourselves to the poor, why don’t raise the poor up? Just think, if we diverted all the money spent “climate change” — whether it is through grants or organizations that promote the idea such as Greenpeace and the UN IPCC — then we could easily provide cheap electricity to everyone!
That one statement shows what the green revolution is all about. It is all about padding the wallets of selected few while wanting everyone else to sacrifice. It is all about taking the wealth and freedom away from the majority to give it to a select few.

A Lovell

“LazyTeenager says:
March 29, 2012 at 4:22 am
Dr Burns says
, because there is no evidence.
—————
The creationists use this argument a lot when referring to The Theory of Evolution. Seems they close their eyes ever time evidence comes along, so as to maintain the appearance of sincerity.”
Yes, they do.

richardscourtney

LazyTeenager:
You make a silly and irrelevant point in your post March 29, 2012 at 4:22 am.
Whatever creationists may or may not do is not pertinent.
It is a simple fact that there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – for a discernible human effect on global climate.
Decades of research at enormous cost (more than 5 billion p.a. with the US alone spending US$2.5 billion p.a. on it) aimed at finding evidence for a discernible human effect on global climate have failed to find any.
But that same research has found much evidence that refutes the AGW hypothesis; e.g.
Missing ‘hot spot’,
Disappearance of ‘committed warming’,
Missing heat,
Lack of global warming this century while atmospheric GHG concentration continues its rise,
Etc.
So, if you have found any evidence for a discernible effect of human activity on global climate then publish it and get the Nobel which awaits any person who can find any.
Richard

John F. Hultquist

There are women and men among us tasked with keeping electric grids stable. Do you suppose they are dancing with delight as they await the off/on surges?

beng

*****
Patrick Plemmons says:
March 29, 2012 at 4:46 am
In support of the Gweenies, Aerosmith and, wait for it, Cheap Trick, are currently on their “Global Warming” tour. Cheap Trick indeed.
*****
Aerosmith? I thought Joe Perry, at least, was smarter than that.
Rush & Geddy Lee would never sell themselves for something like that….

Eustace Cranch

Yep, no facts in evidence at WUWT. No research, no ideas, no hypotheses, no graphs, no charts…
Just gossip, gossip, gossip as far as I can tell.
[but do feel free to make a comment with some content whenever you feel it is appropriate . . in the meantime you could be easily mistaken for a troll . . kbmod]
/

adolfogiurfa

Science at its best: Professor Piers Corbyn at the Internationale Klima- und Energiekonferenz in München, Nov 2011
http://youtu.be/tbGWLgpylKc

Alan

My house will glow, inside and out.

tolo4zero

In the not too distant future, everyone will have to comply with Earth Hour.
This will be possible by the installation of smart meters in every home….

James Ard

If sixty year old has been rockers is the best the alarnists can do, then maybe we are winning afterall.

I will not be turning off a single thing. I’m sick of these PR stunts.

Rob Potter

Nice analogy Alan (Alan D McIntire says: March 29, 2012 at 5:49 am), but I think a heck of a lot CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere by green plants which have – what a surprise- been growing rather nicely in the higher CO2 atmosphere we have at the moment (Satellite photos show shrinking of a number of deserts especially the Sahara).
Even forests are growing back in temperate zones (North America and Europe) after being logged out in the 19th century (forest cover in the US has increased steadily since about the 1920’s) which sucks quite a bit of CO2 from the atmosphere.
As I’ve mentioned before, even our annual crop plants are so much more efficient now (breeding, fertlizers to remove soil nutrient limitations, irrigation to prevent water stress) that even though they are annuals and the CO2 will cycle back into the atmosphere relatively quickly when the crops are eaten or used for fuel, there is a much greater flux than there used to be in the carbon cycle than when we relied on hunting and gathering.
Do humans have an impact on the environment (including the climate)? You bet. Does this mean we control it and are causing catastrophic change? ********** (insert favourite epithet for utter rubbish here)

David Ball

LT, I am not a “creationist”. Also, I lived off grid for 3 years, Canadian winters included. I challenge every “environmentalist” to do this. No power. Read by candle light, heated by wood stove. Hardest 3 years of my life. STFU. Idiot.

Jimmy Haigh.

Eustace Cranch says:
March 29, 2012 at 6:47 am
Enjoy the darkness.

A Lovell

SPreserv says:
March 29, 2012 at 2:40 am
Thank you for fixing link!

Chris B

LazyTeenager says:
March 29, 2012 at 4:22 am
Dr Burns says
, because there is no evidence.
—————
The creationists use this argument a lot when referring to The Theory of Evolution. Seems they close their eyes ever time evidence comes along, so as to maintain the appearance of sincerity.
__________________________________________
It seems that whenever CAGW extremists meet opposition they think that opposition is influenced by creationists, such is their faith.
It seems they close their eyes every time evidence comes along.

Doug Proctor

In announcing his support for Earth Hour, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”
If this is the true meaning of his gesture – “solidarity” with those who have no electricity – then the need he is speaking of is getting MORE energy out there. Not cutting back on ours, but developing sources for others. Unless, of course, he means deindustrialize us and industrialize them, for a net balance of zero, which is a whole different thing from reducing our CO2 output per se.

dcfl51

Eustace Cranch says:
March 29, 2012 at 6:47 am
Yep, no facts in evidence at WUWT. No research, no ideas, no hypotheses, no graphs, no charts…
Eustace, this thread is about Earth Hour, an event which celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness.( h/t Ross McKitrick).
What research would you expect ? Research into disruption of the grid during this hour, or maybe the energy wasted keeping turbines spinning as they cannot be powered down and then up again over the course of one hour. What charts would you like ? How about pie charts showing the proportion of numpties actually going along with this futile gesture.
Look around this site. Hardly a climate related paper gets published without it being discussed on this site. You will find plenty of threads dealing with meaty scientific topics including all the ideas, hypotheses, graphs and charts you could possibly want. Evaluate and weigh the arguments. Contribute on any areas of expertise you may have. But don’t do a drive-by snipe.

Reblogged this on Bohls Neighborhood Talk and commented:
This seems to be a constructive proposal.