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
I tell you what…I’ll turn off my lights for
EarthEnergy 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.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…
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.
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
Let’s all join Jo Nova in celebration!
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/the-hour-of-power-celebrate-human-achievement-this-saturday/#more-21089
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.
“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.
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
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?
*****
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….
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]
/
Science at its best: Professor Piers Corbyn at the Internationale Klima- und Energiekonferenz in München, Nov 2011
http://youtu.be/tbGWLgpylKc
My house will glow, inside and out.
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….
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.
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)
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.
Eustace Cranch says:
March 29, 2012 at 6:47 am
Enjoy the darkness.
SPreserv says:
March 29, 2012 at 2:40 am
Thank you for fixing link!
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.
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.
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.