Earth Hour 2012

Well folks, it is almost time again for that hour of stupidity as we reflect on life without electricity. You’d think that the organisers would have a little more trouble at gaining sponsors after the degradation of climate alarmism. Yet the usual suspects provide support, with all Commonwealth departments and agencies required to switch off the lights for an hour from 20:30 on 31 March 2012.

Despite changes in government, we find the major sponsors include the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and the Brisbane City Council.

If you want to understand the lunacy of this project, look no further than the WWF’s comments on Greece’s participation in Earth Hour:

In times of difficulty, where does one look for inspiration? Where shall one find the antidote to sadness? The answer for Greece is where life flourishes. Given the global economic crisis, WWF Greece is getting personal with its Earth Hour 2012 campaign. People are invited to participate with their own message, one of support of saving the natural environment to protect a lot more.

Today many see conservation as a luxury, especially when times are tough. Greece stands on the opposite side – to the Greeks, conservation is not a luxury. It’s a necessity. Saving Greece’s natural resources allows the Country to reap the rewards nature gives back. We can save “the escape”, “the olive oil”, “the big blue” and ultimately, the “Greek pride”.

With this rational, WWF Greece is asking Earth Hour participants to use a Facebook application, where they can upload and share a message of what they think can be saved in an effort to protect the environment.

On Saturday, March 31, at  20:30, Earth Hour Greece will link the We Can Save messages with its lights off events. This will be their signal, showing that by saving nature we can save a lot more.

Oh please, use a Facebook application to save the environment. Just like pressing a Facebook button will kill Kony. Why hasn’t the Eliminate Mugabe button worked?

About Samuel J

Samuel J has an economics background and is a part-time consultant
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to Earth Hour 2012

  1. Rafe

    Never mind Greece, check out North Korea. Every day is Earth Day!

  2. blogstrop

    They have electricity in Greece?

  3. Mike of Marion

    Not happening at my place – I need the light to see the light!!

  4. How does NoFax make money out of this thing?

    This is just a guilt based way to shake down for donations after all, so how do their poor shareholder benefit? I’m sure they would not be so crass to just pocket some of the donations to the Earth Hour foundation.

    Is the money from the advertising that goes with the Earth Hour lift outs?

  5. Rabz

    Why are they still persisting with this wankfest?

    Hey, let’s celebrate the dark ages!

    I’ll be turning on every light, appliance, etc, just as I did last year.

    Stupid hippy scum.

  6. Not happening at my place – I need the light to see the light!!

    I remember one amusing lame stunt by the Chaser Boys (more like creeping old men) where they did a stunt on every lefties favourite Liberal Turnbull.

    In the time honoured tradition of the Chaser, they kept triggering the sensor light out from of his house, then claimed the then environment minister was not honouring Earth Hour.

    Side splitting hilarity.

  7. Mk50 of Brisbane

    I see this as a reflection of defeat.

    They have been defeated, and are retreating deeper into fabulism.

    Why?

    Because they are substituting as a metric of success a count of clicks on a computer screen for tangible, measurable success int eh real world.

    This is very good news – they are in retreat here.

  8. Hey, let’s celebrate the dark ages!

    I thought Blair’s photo reveals the reality of those days very well.

    They were poor and dirty and malnourished, but they are superior as they were carbon pure.

  9. James in Melbourne

    That Faurfax supports this puerile undergraduate rubbish is sad testament to the decline of a great Australian company. They say to their readers – quite proudly – do not come to us for information on this huge and divisive issue of our times, because we have decided to cheer-lead for one of the sides.

    Commercially unbelievable, and in the context of what should be the raison d’être of a media group, quite astonishingly stupid.

    Played like a violin by green groups, so they died. How’s that for a commercial epitaph?

  10. They say to their readers – quite proudly – do not come to us for information on this huge and divisive issue of our times, because we have decided to cheer-lead for one of the sides.

    …but they do not say, Fairfax actually owns 33% of this astroturf organisation…

    [H/T Boy on a Bike]

  11. Rabz

    poor and dirty and malnourished, but they are superior as they were carbon pure.

    Yep, just how the greenslime would prefer people were now – minus the roof over their heads…

  12. Rabz

    Commercially unbelievable, and in the context of what should be the raison d’être of a media group, quite astonishingly stupid.

    You don’t say?

  13. James in Melbourne

    Read the chart and weep, Rabz, if you were still so uninformed as to hold Fairfax shares.

    Destruction of shareholder value on the scale that these bozos have done it ought not escape punishment under the law. They have trashed their fiduciary duty.

  14. Rabz

    James, the other astonishing thing about that chart is it starts at an all time price high!

  15. daddy dave

    Earth Hour’s pretty harmless for the individuals – ie normal members of the public – who go along. They feel good, they feel like they’re a part of something, and it does no harm.

    The sponsors are a different matter. They’re putting their names, their brands, their money and weight into promoting it.

  16. Obio

    In a somewhat childish (but enjoyable) protest I turn on all the house lights during earth hour, i may add a halogen spot light this year for variety

  17. Gab

    Once a year, during Lent, the Gaia worshippers give up electricity.
    It’s good practise for a future we are trundling towards. And getting the kiddies involved ensures a world without electricity is a noble thing.

  18. Irving J

    click like to save the planet

  19. cohenite

    Fairfax did publish this a couple of years ago:

    Earth Hour not such a bright idea

    To celebrate concern for the environment through darkness is ironic. In North Korea, where it is Earth Hour 24/7 people are reduced to eating grass and there is no environmental preservation. It is a fact that only in advanced, energy rich countries can proper environmental measures be implemented. Being poor and concerned for the environment ahead of your own survival are contradictory human conditions.
    The putative reason for Earth Hour, man-made global warming [AGW] is now more problematic than ever. The most recent attempt to justify action against AGW, the joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology [BoM] “State of Climate” report has every claim for worsening AGW contradicted by official CSIRO and BoM records.
    Of course, these official records have also been subject to justified critique following the Climate Research Unit scandal where leaked e-mails revealed possible manipulation of data and information.
    This is not to say there are not real environmental issues. The coal industry’s failure to address pollution problems such as particulates and the conflict between pastoral and mining use of land are problems which need to considered in a measured way free of the hysteria and hyperbole attached to the apocalyptic idea that the world is going to end if fossil fuels continue to be used as the cheap energy source providing prosperity to the world.
    The coal industry has also failed in the PR war. Coal is an efficient energy source which has been responsible for much of the Earth’s current prosperity. Instead of defending that record and admitting the defects in mining and storage process the coal industry has entered into a meaningless partnership with the government arguing that carbon capture will allow business as normal to continue. Simply put carbon capture is not a practical way of stopping emissions from the burning of coal because the capture and storage use as much energy and space as the burning and mining.
    The issue of how mankind interacts with the environment is the issue which is being ignored in the AGW debate and feel-good events like Earth Hour are a distraction from that issue. There is an increasingly emerging viewpoint from the green side of the debate which says that humanity is a blight on nature and that on principle any and every human encroachment of nature is a bad thing. This is based on the idea that nature is worth more than human values.
    The alternative viewpoint is that human prosperity and development, which many people seem to take for granted, necessarily involves encroachment and containment of natural process. Every time a hospital or school or home is built the natural process is compromised. The key for humanity is being able to continue to prosper without poisoning our environment. This is a completely different philosophy because it puts humans first not nature.
    Instead of celebrating darkness, an event incidentally which does not save emissions because the coal power plants continue to burn coal during the period on a stand-by facility, it would be more appropriate to celebrate the light symbolising humanity’s capacity to prosper and not pollute the environment.

    I suspect it got up because a couple of swips are made at the coal industry; if you criticise the coal industry you can usually get a foot in the door at fairfax. However, I believe the author is now persona non grata.

  20. .

    Might turn the heater on and leave the doors open on earth day.

  21. papachango

    Every religion has their annual period of fasting, abstinence and reflection – Lent, Passover Ramadan etc.

    Why should Gaia worship be any different?

  22. Rafe

    nice find cohenite, some of the criticism of the coal industry is ok, it is attacked for going along with the green scam with “carbon capture”. What a travesty!

  23. Rafe

    papa, should we give up eating Greens for Lent?

  24. C.L.

    It’s worth pointing out again that the Fairfax/ALP/ warmenist alliance is the first anti-electricity movement in history (excepting North Korea, the Amish and the Taliban).

  25. JC

    Cl
    To be fair I don’t think the Taliban is anti-electricity. They just have to keep their lights of in case drones pick up their scent.

    I’m pointing this out in the interest of accuracy of course.

  26. What is the mental age of someone who writes this trash. What a disgusting person.

  27. .

    If only they applied this philosophy to all Greek expenditure.

    Start saving bitches.

  28. Rabz

    Destruction of shareholder value on the scale that these bozos have done it ought not escape punishment under the law. They have trashed their fiduciary duty.

    Gold, James, Gold – and so very correct.

    If I was a shareholder I’d be leading a lynch mob to Darling Island and then Spencer St.

  29. James in Melbourne

    Rabz, you look at the glossy magazines and their ads and realise that Fewfax marketing believes that their readers live in Brighton and Toorak. Then you read the editorial in The Age and realise that the journalists write for people who live in Northcote and Brunswick. If that is not a flawed business model I do not know what is.

  30. Second thoughts, even if it is accepted that climate change is real, and I would suggest that climate science has established the case, even in the face of competent critics such as Professor Lindzen, then there is the question of whether symbolic actions are effective. Still, I suppose, the contention would be that remind people of the state of the climate, and occasion a productive debate.

  31. Gab

    The climate has been changing for eons. News at 11.

  32. James in Melbourne

    Hate to quibble, wmmbb, but climate science has done nothing more than assert the case.

    Oh, and do its damnedest to make sure that anyone attempting to rebut that assertion is not heard from, ever.

  33. even in the face of competent critics such as Professor Lindzen

    Getting less and less credible as the years go on.

  34. JC

    Stepford

    Can you please turn on the warning “light” when you’re linking to realbeta.org. FFS stepford that’s 3 secs of my life I’ll never get back.

  35. JamesK

    Getting less and less credible as the years go on.

    Stop your lies steve and try not be quite so silly.

    The globe hasn’t warmed in 15 years.

    He’s actually therefore more and credible as the years have rolled on.

  36. James in Melbourne

    Poor Lindzen. A life’s knowledge of what affects and drives climate, all razed and scattered to naught by the collective genius of Al Gore BA, Tim Flannery the fossil scientist, Peter GArrett the former lead screecher of a painfully pretentious rock band, that demented zealot and public-purse bandit Bob Brown and Tubbsie Milne*.

    They all know climate better than the emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT.

    *Oops, I forgot, and Steve from Brisbane.

  37. Winston Smith

    Remember everyone, that at some stage during this propaganda exercise, Fairfax will probably have an aircraft up or getting feed from a satellite so they can point out that even more people are turning off their lights to support Earth Hour. (I suspect that the inversion of reality is the primary function of propaganda.)
    I would enjoin all you who are turning on your lights to get your security lights facing upwards to increase your lux output.
    A couple of my lights are under the eaves, but I have an extension cord that can move them out to the garden
    Hopefully, you can see me from Mars.

  38. kae

    Crikey, Winston.

    That’s all we need. An invasion of greenie finger-waggers from Mars.

  39. Aqualung

    James,

    A Canadian mate of mine said he first heard about Midnight Oil while at uni. They were a support act. Apparently Garrett abused the audience because he did not feel they had cheered him and his band enough. My mate said he thought they were quite mediocre when playing, but contemptible after the outburst.

  40. James in Melbourne

    Exactly, Aqualung. I saw them many times. You could not just enjoy the music, you had to be in awe of the philosophical genius and hit between the eyes by the irrefutable political righteousness of the lyrics. Garrett sincerely believed that everyone gave a shit about the drivel he had imbibed from Green Left and Farrago and which informed his puerile anti-Americanism. As for the “look at moi” physicality, it looked for all the world like someone undergoing St. Vitus’ Dance & Tourette’s Syndrome simultaneously at the mike stand. They had some very good songs, but they couldn’t just be a band, they had to have the “causes,” in all of their dreary Northcote shared-house correctness. God, they made me laugh – but not half as much as did Lurch’s seeking of a political career. That went really well, didn’t it?

  41. Winston Smith

    Aqualung, I think that the abusing the audience meme has continued into his parliamentary career, but with much more subtlety.

  42. Winston Smith

    kae, Martians have tentacles, not fingers.

  43. kae

    Whatever.

    I suppse they’ll be too buy waving their tentacles at their own planet warming Mars rapists.

  44. H B Bear

    Fortunately thanks to continued crap like this Fairfax will be able to turn their presses off for Earth Hour without any effect on circulation. Permanent lights out can’t be far off now. That should save a few carbons.

  45. cohenite

    Steve from Brisbane denigrates Lindzen on the back of the usual nonsense from RC and John Cook. The RC link chastises Lindzen for daring to suggest that GISS has been fiddling temperature data.

    First of all here are all the major temperature indices since 1998, the time when the climate is supposed to have shifted from an EL Nino dominated to a La Nina. GISS is cearly an outlier with even UAH, the only other showing a slight increase over the period showing a rate more than 1/2 less than GISS.

    Examples of GISS manipulating data to create warming are legion; this can include getting rid of cold sites to making up warming where there are no thermometers such as in the Arctic.

    Lindzen is correct to say is making this stuff up; the only problem is that wordl-wide anti-AGW policy is based on these lies.

  46. Simon

    Please, I need some more terrible Fairfax puns.

    Oh yes and I hate scientific evidence as well. Those scientists and their facts are so annoying.

  47. brc

    I just wish someone would go to one of the big power stations during Earth Hour, and see if any of the needles even move a tiny bit. It’s like all those people switching their TV off at the wall, as it that is going to change the RPM of the steam turbines even a tiny bit, as they spin away, 24×7 at the exact same speed, regardless of how many households reduce their power consumption by a couple of watt-hours.

    Would be fun to start up a movement called ‘christmas lights for earth hour’ and get everyone to put up their Christmas Lights and get them blazing, just for one night.

    I personally have never seen anyone ever take part in this, apart from the government departments.

    But then that is modern-day environmentalism – sit in the comfort of homes, play on computers and click buttons to buttress up your moral superiority. Wear screen printed t-shirts from China advertising just how green and hip you are. Forget actually going out and cleaning things up, that’s for the other people to do.

  48. Viva

    Why are they still persisting with this wankfest?

    It’s like Sorry Day – it will go on forever, long after anyone remembers what it was all meant to be for in the first place …….

  49. boy on a bike

    It’s good to dive into the memory banks to pull out the Great Green Scares of yesteryear:

    AP Online

    October 19, 1999; Tuesday 11:47 Eastern Time

    HEADLINE: Nature Group Issues Climate Warning

    DATELINE: GENEVA

    Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned Tuesday.

    It projected that sea levels would rise between three-quarters of an inch to four inches per decade. This would threaten low-lying U.S. coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Baltimore and Miami with flooding. The Japanese cities of Tokyo and Osaka among others would also be at risk, it said.

    Large areas of the Amazon would become more susceptible to forest fires. Drought would also likely affect Argentina, southern Mexico and Central America.Rising sea temperatures by 2010 threatened the very survival of the Australian Great Barrier Reef.

    And where did this scare come from?

    “WWF commissioned the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia to conduct research into various climate change scenarios over the next few decades.”

  50. On the question of the political efficacy of symbolic actions, as a means to raise awareness, whatever happened to “World Civilization Hour”? Presumably that must be as stupid as Earth Hour.

    Brad Plumer in The Washington Post quotes a study by Adam Millard-Ball in the Journal of Urban Economics suggesting the 500 US cities with climate action plans would have taken those measures without them. Adam Millard-Ball concludes:

    “Rather than a focus on the creation of city-level climate plans, “policymakers might be better served by redirecting those efforts towards the implementation of specific programs; on funding emission-reduction projects in the progressive cities that already want to implement them; and on taking action (perhaps in the form of marketing campaigns) to shape environmental preferences in a direction supportive of climate change mitigation.”

    (Emphasis added)

    Then again perhaps climate scientists are as, cohenite, are liars. Now that is a claim that is open to impartial and objective testing.

  51. Jazza

    I have a question for WWF
    IF turning off our lights saves the world, how come we only have to do it one day a year and how long will it be till the earth is actually saved?

  52. boy on a bike

    Big Green in action – from 2000:

    Gland, Switzerland – As the days count down to November’s crucial climate summit in The Hague, a coalition of leading environmental organizations today launched the first international web-based initiative to give citizens around the world a voice in demanding a halt to global warming.

    The website http://www.climatevoice.org has been launched by 16 organizations, including WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The site aims to send 10 million messages from the public to world political leaders demanding that they use the November summit to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

    The 16 organisations launching http://www.climatevoice.org are:

    WWF,
    Greenpeace International,
    Friends of the Earth International,
    Climate Action Network Australia (CANA),
    David Suzuki Foundation,
    German NGO Forum on Environment & Development (Forum Umwelt & Entwicklung),
    HELIO International,
    EURONATURA,
    Ozone Action,
    The Clean Air Network,
    Climate Solutions,
    The Climate Alliance of European Cities with Indigenous Rainforest Peoples (Klima-Buendnis/Alianza del Clima e.V.),
    The Center for International Environmental Law,
    Save Our World,
    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and
    National Environmental Trust.

    And they have the temerity to say that they are under attack from well organised, well funded, centrally directed bloggers.

    hahahahahahahahah

  53. Adrien

    Well folks, it is almost time again for that hour of stupidity as we reflect on life without electricity.

    It’s not bloody stupid. It’s virtuous and pure and full of love for dolphins. It’s all high time we took a bloody hard look at ourselves, realized how corrupt we all are and follow the path of the world’s most most virtuous country.

    Metromick now resides there as the full time Court Fool and cognac-taster.

  54. Pickles

    Let them click and clack. We now know that if we can gain access to Facebook friends we can hunt them down and punish them.

    Bwah ha ha.

  55. Rabz

    Metromick now resides there as the full time Court Fool and cognac-taster.

    Good to hear it.

    We all need to do our bit – some more than others…

  56. Winston Smith

    Metromick is there?
    As Court Fool?
    Jesus. You’d want to make sure they got the joke.

  57. Jc

    Really, my carbon slave is there. Can you show me.

  58. Ellen of Tasmania

    “Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.”

    The above is part of the closing comments made by Lindzen at the Seminar he gave at the
    House of Commons Committee Rooms
    Westminster, London
    22nd February 2012

    See the rest here.

    Just by the way, when our kids were young, we used to have an electricity-free night each year on the Winter Solstice. Open fire and candles and all. (Kept the fridge on etc., so it was only token-electricity-free.) Our way of celebrating the shortest day of the year and feeling VERY thankful that we lived in the era of electric lights. And that we didn’t live in North Korea. And that we could cheat and get tea cooked before it got dark. Although it was always fun cooking toast and marshmallows over the fire by candlelight. Then one day, our power line broke and we were without power for 3 days.

    Maybe that’s why they only make it Earth ‘Hour’, so people don’t get any real idea of what it would be like to live without our abundant electricity supplies.

  59. Eyrie

    Well with the reluctance to build new power stations we’re going to face brownouts and rolling blackouts in the next few years. I propose a register of Earth Hour people. With Smart meters we can just turn off the houses of those who signed, to reduce the load.
    Same for the idiots who complain about aircraft noise at Sydney. Just sign the register and you’ll never fly in or out of Sydney ever again.

  60. Gab

    Top Five Reasons Earth Hour is a Joke.

    And the Number 1 reason is…

    The amount listed on your electricity bill is only a fraction of the energy used to support your lifestyle. Do you buy imported goods, especially gadgets, that travel internationally? Do you buy food from a supermarket, or anything else transported by truck? Do you drive? Do you shop at stores which violate all the ‘principles’ of Earth Hour by blasting heat or air conditioning all day long, using continuous bright lighting, including external signage? What about the factories and farms where everything you wear, eat, or use is manufactured or grown?

    Reducing energy use is a fundamental lifestyle change, not a light dimmer in the kitchen. Earth Hour only heightens awareness of how superficial the commitment is from the proponents of global warming. Get off of the Internet, as all the servers, routers, switches, backup power supplies, air-conditioned data centers, and rare earth metal-consuming manufacturing processes are far too costly to justify using them for playing on Facebook, Twitter, and MyBO.com.

  61. Gab

    From: Top Five Reasons Earth Hour is a Joke.

    And the Number 1 reason is…

    The amount listed on your electricity bill is only a fraction of the energy used to support your lifestyle. Do you buy imported goods, especially gadgets, that travel internationally? Do you buy food from a supermarket, or anything else transported by truck? Do you drive? Do you shop at stores which violate all the ‘principles’ of Earth Hour by blasting heat or air conditioning all day long, using continuous bright lighting, including external signage? What about the factories and farms where everything you wear, eat, or use is manufactured or grown?

    Reducing energy use is a fundamental lifestyle change, not a light dimmer in the kitchen. Earth Hour only heightens awareness of how superficial the commitment is from the proponents of global warming. Get off of the Internet, as all the servers, routers, switches, backup power supplies, air-conditioned data centers, and rare earth metal-consuming manufacturing processes are far too costly to justify using them for playing on Facebook, Twitter, and MyBO.com.

  62. JamesK

    I powered up every applianve and light on the premises last year.

    I hope I don’t forget to act this year.

    Can we have a reminder on the day please?

  63. I’m willing to make a sacrifice, I’ll turn off the solar lights in the garden if I can be bothered.

  64. sdfc

    Turning all your lights on as some kind of petty protest against earth hour is sad and pathetic.

  65. Splatacrobat

    I’m not doing earth hour this year. Last year I turned all the power off at the meter box but forgot that Granny’s oxygen ventilator was plugged in. We now celebrate Granny’s passing on earth hour with a laser light show into the heavens.

  66. Winston Smith

    Yes, sdfc. We understand that you don’t like it when people disagree with you, so here’s what I’ll do on earth hour night:
    1. Leave the two Patrols and the 380 in the driveway, with the engines idling.
    2. Run the house on the new 12kva genset I bought.
    3. Leave on all the aircons and eat toast with imported caviar.
    4. Bring out the both the ride on mowers, and leave them idling down the back.
    5. Prune the roses with the whipper snipper. and,
    6. Light the tyre dump just out of town.
    I’ll have to ask the child bride what she wants to do – she’s rather inventive.

  67. Having questioned the sense of Earth Hour as a symbolic action, I understand clearly based on the belief that a common and global response to the climate crisis is required.

    Rather than attempt an argument about generalizations, selected data, somebody should put a coherent case. That to my mind was the significance of Professor Lindzen’s presentation, and from what I can judge it was shown to be deficient. If those arguments are incorrect, specify what is wrong with them.

    James in Melbourne suggested that the opposed view was not listed to. Somebody put a case without resorting to the usual gimmicks of cherry picking or failing to understand that necessarily climate is an uncertain science, although there are established scientific and statistical principles that underpin it.

    Would it be too much to expect that everyone could put aside personal attacks and psychological distortions of reality.

  68. John A

    “an hour from 20:30 on 31 March 2012″

    Well, err, couldn’t they move it by one day?

    I would have thought April 1st was more appropriate somehow…

  69. Winston Smith

    “a common and global response to the climate crisis is required.”

    What bloody crisis, wmmbb, you goose?

  70. John Mc

    Turning all your lights on as some kind of petty protest against earth hour is sad and pathetic

    My friends and I enjoy it every year. Seems to go off fine.

    The only problem is that no one seems to care anymore and your street is pretty well lit anyway. Kind of takes some of the fun out of it.

    (But really, is a protest like that any more pathetic than earth hour itself. I actually think earth hour is worse. It’s coordinated, supported by high-level advertising people and environmental groups, and people (used to) take it seriously.)

  71. The frequency and intensity of world-wide extreme weather events may be an indication worthy of attention. According to NOAA, “2011 was among the most extreme weather years in history”. Extreme weather has continued this year. So what is happening with the climate then?

  72. Gab

    So what is happening with the climate then?

    Behaving as it has done for millennia.

  73. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Yeah, wmmbb, that’s probably why there are fewer hurricanes and cyclones now than ever before.

    You goose, they have redefined ‘extreme weather’ to include cold events etc, then pretend it’s all due to global warming!

    Meanwhile, investigation of dataset after dataset shows completely spurious ‘adjustments’; to the raw temperature record over history to make it accord with the computer models of the warmies.

    If glowball warmenating is such a worry, why do warmies have to lie about it, why do warmies falsify the data, and why are the warmy leaders not acting like it’s a crisis in their own lives?

    Flannery bangs on about sea level rise – and buys a mansion in the water. Gore bangs on about CO2, and not only flies his private jet everywhere but as multiple mansions each with 5-10 times the energy consumption of the average American house. And so-on.

    It’s a scam, and you fell for it.

  74. dover_beach

    The first entry wmmbb links to begins with this warming:

    This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
    -It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since September 2009.
    -It has no lead section. Tagged since September 2009.
    -It may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. Tagged since September 2009.

    The second article is a puff piece from SciAm that has some of the above ‘issues’.

  75. OK, I expected this type of response. NCDC provides more data.

    The sequence of flooding in Eastern Australia seem to me to be exceptional. CSIRO observe, and they take climate change as a given:

    The effects of climate change will be superimposed on natural climate variability, leading to changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

    We should keep a watch on extreme weather. My sense was that sequence of such events were on the increase. I think dover-beach were right about Wikipedia, but I don’t consider the article in Scientific American can be easily dismissed, although it is not an extensive treatment. Yes is possible for one part of the world to experience extreme cold weather and the trend of the mean global temperature to increase.

    The decrease is cyclone activity is one contention, but is not universal among climate scientists (and I know, what would they know?). The contention, MK 50, that scientists are fudging the figures is important. Be specific. Then I will go and search to find out what is going on.

    Science should be immune those kinds of malpractice, not simply because of the peer review process, but the need to raise questions and conduct further research. All I know that before research is conducted, one process is undertake a literature review. These alleged fake results should show up and reflect badly on the organization that conducted the research. I don’t see how it would be possible to understand the climate system, weather, without models.

    Gab, climate change is systemic. We all know the basic model. There has to be a change in one of those components.

    While extreme weather is an indicator, there is no getting away from the science, and for that most of us have to depend on the scientists.

  76. Gab

    WIDELY-HELD assumptions that climate change is responsible for an upsurge in extreme drought, flood and storm events are not supported by a landmark review of the science.

    And a clear climate change signal would not be evident for decades because of natural weather variability.

    But rather than bolster claims of a climate change link, the scientific review prepared by the world’s leading climate scientists for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights the level of uncertainty.

    While the human and financial toll of extreme weather events has certainly risen, the cause has been mostly due to increased human settlement rather than worse weather.

    There is only “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited to medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/review-fails-to-support-climate-change-link/story-e6frg6xf-1226198360121

  77. sdfc

    I don’t care what you do during earth hour Winston. You’re the one who’s paying for all the power you use in your rather sad protest.

  78. dover_beach

    Scientists:

    There is only “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited to medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

    wmmbb:
    there is no getting away from the science, and for that most of us have to depend on the scientists.

    Indeed.

  79. Gab

    Dover, I didn’t want to rub his nose in it. A tap on his nose with the IPCC document was enough. :)

  80. dover_beach

    Ah, Gab, I couldn’t help myself.

  81. Cory Olsen

    Winston,

    I’ll be protesting in support of your protest.

    Although i think my protest will have a significantly smaller carbon footprint.

  82. Winston SMITH

    Thanks everyone.
    My protest will cost me less than driving to work in a major capital for a week.
    But it will be a lot more fun.
    And when other kids in the street come and ask me why I’m doing it, I can tell them why.
    Get it sdfc?
    Bees and honey, maaaate.

  83. Very funny.

    Global warming and climate might means the formation of industrial civilization is finished. There is a set of psychological responses, which should be understood, and that include grief, uncertainty and denial. It is like the whole fabric of your being is been attacked. So that argument is not primarily about the evidence. No question, coal and the other fossil fuels have been fundamental from the beginning of the industrial age.

    So now the message over and over, what is to be done now?

  84. Gab

    2012: Most polar ice ever recorded:

    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/52724

    might means the formation of industrial civilization is finished.

    Might, eh? And it might not. The only current danger to our industrialised civilisation is the Greens and Gillard and their incessant attacks on industry and insistence that we accept their “green” inefficient and costly technology to power the economy. Do you not read what is happening in Germany now,since they started closing nuclear plants, wmmbb?

    Forget the psychobabble and use logic and rational thinking. And look at the evidence.

  85. Oh come on

    You don’t say?

    If I was a shareholder I’d be leading a lynch mob to Darling Island and then Spencer St.

    You’d think that “shareholder activist” Stephen Mayne would be all over this catastrophe like flies on shit.

    …wouldn’t you?

  86. Gab, “psychobabble” is the way in which the political market is being segmented from focus group research. One group that comes to mind are described as “aspirational voters”, and that is about being a consumer.

    Assume, as we can, that CO2 has to be reduced to 350 ppm, then it is an open whether humanity will make it in time. Delay increases the total cost, and makes a successful realignment, the civilizational challenge, less likely. Given the scientific premises, what odds could be give for the grandchildren of the children alive now having a decent life? The problem is sustainable energy, food, water and species diversity. The question is not one of logical and rational thinking, but one of accepting the implications of the empirical evidence.

  87. James in Melbourne

    whether humanity will make it in time.

    You’ve watched too many crappy movies. And that includes Gore’s.

    what odds could be give for the grandchildren of the children alive now having a decent life?

    The 21st Century’s version of Godwin’s Law. Whoever invokes “our grandchildren” is deploying unadulterated schmaltz to buttress a poor argument. Our grandchildren, wmmb, will be deriving energy from sources not yet known and will be as astonished by our primitiveness on that score as we are by our grandparents’ horses and carts.

  88. John Mc

    what odds could be give for the grandchildren of the children alive now having a decent life?

    Something approaching 100%. Like say 99.99%. I wish I was them.

  89. James in Melbourne

    Damn, I meant “our children’s grandchildren.”

  90. Winston Smith

    Oh dear, wmmbb.

    “that CO2 has to be reduced to 350 ppm, then it is an open whether humanity will make it in time.”

    During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

    You’ve been sucked in princess.
    Feeling silly yet?

  91. James in Melbourne

    Sinclair, how about introducing the ability to pull a post back down, à la Facebook, correct one’s own annoying typos, and re-post?

  92. Gab

    accepting the implications of the empirical evidence.

    True. Now show me the evidence. Thanks.

  93. James in Melbourne

    No, Winston, no, a thousand times, no!

    It is only Liberal voters driving 4WDs on unnecessary trips to pick up little Tim and Lydia from their over-privileged private schools that cause elevated CO2 levels!

    Surely you know that by now?

  94. Winston Smith

    “whether humanity will make it in time.”

    Using Google translate:

    “I think I just pooped myself over fear of …something bad.”

  95. Winston Smith

    Ha! All trips to pick up Tim and Lydia are necessary.

    You didn’t see the flaw in your argument, did you?
    :D

  96. Winston Smith

    James, certain persons would put up a flamer, then change it, and say “I said no such thing.”

  97. James in Melbourne

    Yes, you’re probably right.

    Why wouldn’t you put Tim and Lydia on carbon-pious public transport – is it that they might have to sit near kids from Our Lady of the Perpetual Sorrows or even, shock, horror, West Carbon High?

  98. James in Melbourne

    Anyway, wmmbb, for the 100th Post on this thread I just wanted to ask you Earth Hour types why you only stop at one hour?

    Aren’t you a teeny bit ashamed that North Korea has declared Earth LifeTM?

    Now that’s commitment!

  99. Thanks Gab. Yours is a sane response. I basically accept what, for example, James Hansen says and has said.

    Let us just accept the case as presented. Treat the accepted empirical science as the problem to be dispassionately solved Put aside whatever doubts, scepticism and superior insights into climate science, and ask the questions:What then in those circumstances needs to be done? And, Can it be done in time?

    The point was to address this problem, I argue that it is necessary to have a strategic vision, informed with compassion and a moral sense. Many of us struggle with cognitive limitations, so it is difficult to think about a long term future. That was the means to the end; it was not intended as a rhetorical device.

    Winston, I don’t think there were any human beings alive in Carboniferous, so just perhaps climate change was due to other systemic changes, including continental drift . Since I know you are so fond of Al Gore, it is an inconvenient fact, the human population is projected to reach at least 9 billion before it starts to reduce. Still it interesting that life seems to have emerged at that time.

    From my point of view,this issue of climate change is important on several levels. The question of who should we listen to any technical subject, should indeed we listen to the boat builders, is as old as the practice of democracy. Dialogue, the fundamental institution, is often about disagreement about the common good. What I observe generally is the fragmentation of electors, around life style issues, with “pscyhobabble” as the silent actor in the segmentation, with a consequent incapacity of the Demos to engage in long term, or strategic thinking, which applies in particular to the climate challenge.

  100. Gab

    I can tell you are very passionate and concerned, wmmbb. This is admirable and not to be ridiculed. I don’t share your concern because as long as humans are allowed to invent (exclude government funding as it limits innovating and creativity) new technology will solve many issues. Like nuclear power, as an example.

    You still haven’t provided evidence though. I don’t expect you to as to date there is none.

  101. dover_beach

    Let us just accept the case as presented…. Put aside whatever doubts, scepticism…into climate science,

    Why? Moreover, why don’t you “just accept the case as presented…. Put aside whatever doubts, scepticism” you have about whatever solution is presented as well.

  102. I am prepared to take the consensus conclusions of the climate scientists, including unknowns, confidence levels and other qualifications. When a specialist told me I had kidney disease, I did not endeavour to be expert in nephrology. I just looked at the evidence and advice presented and thought it is necessary to make certain judgements.

    These arguments among ourselves about the scientific evidence go nowhere, although they can be drawn together and presented as a coherent whole.

    Gab I agree in part, except I see innovation as a social process, with creativity as the individual component. So in the broad sense, innovation is a governmental process. Bureaucracy has utility, but perhaps it is not designed for creativity.

  103. John Mc

    I just looked at the evidence and advice presented and thought it is necessary to make certain judgements.

    And plenty of people have gone to a doctor, felt uncomfortable with the outcome, gone to another one to a different diagnosis and a better solution.

    The idea that a lay person cannot exercise rational judgement, or does not add value to the ultimate decision by doing so, is completely wrong. In actual fact, it’s probably the other way round. If it was not for that judgement from the patient, the value of that professional could not be realised.

  104. Les Majesty

    Would it be too much to expect that everyone could put aside personal attacks and psychological distortions of reality.

    LOL

  105. Les Majesty

    And plenty of people have gone to a doctor, felt uncomfortable with the outcome, gone to another one to a different diagnosis and a better solution.

    The idea that a lay person cannot exercise rational judgement, or does not add value to the ultimate decision by doing so, is completely wrong. In actual fact, it’s probably the other way round. If it was not for that judgement from the patient, the value of that professional could not be realised.

    And how many doctors did you have to visit before you found one who would endorse your purchase of an alkaline water machine?

  106. John Mc

    Hahahahaha. You just get funnier every post. Blow up the fart cushion again.

  107. Gab

    I am prepared to take the consensus conclusions of the climate scientists, including unknowns, confidence levels and other qualifications.

    I don’t think the “consensus” is as widespread as we are told. Further, in science, consensus is not part of the scientific process. Questioning is first and foremost of great import. As is reproducibility of results. As is testing. Modelling is a nice concept, useful in many areas such as industry. Much is understood and included, unlike climate modelling.

    When a specialist told me I had kidney disease

    I am sorry to hear this. I cannot begin to imagine how devastating this has been for you. I sincerely wish you well.

    I did not endeavour to be expert in nephrology. I just looked at the evidence and advice presented and thought it is necessary to make certain judgements.

    But that’s the point – you were presented with evidence after numerous tests conducted on your body. You were not given a modelling of what could be the problem, with confidence levels.

    Bureaucracy has utility,

    It is the antithesis of creativity and innovation. Wind power? Solar? For the last 20 years or so we have been told that these would become viable. They still are not viable and consume vast amounts of subsidies (without subsidies these forms of energy generators are not sustainable).Plus don’t work in certain weather conditions. The bureaucracy surrounding “green power” is monstrous and at what opportunity cost to innovations. Government cherry-picking new technology has few winners.

    I agree, that we are not going to agree. Oh well.

  108. Les Majesty

    John Mc, don’t get me wrong. I have as much contempt for those dumb science workers as you do.

  109. Les Majesty

    Assume, as we can, that CO2 has to be reduced to 350 ppm, then it is an open whether humanity will make it in time. Delay increases the total cost, and makes a successful realignment, the civilizational challenge, less likely. Given the scientific premises, what odds could be give for the grandchildren of the children alive now having a decent life?…

    From my point of view,this issue of climate change is important on several levels. The question of who should we listen to any technical subject, should indeed we listen to the boat builders, is as old as the practice of democracy. Dialogue, the fundamental institution, is often about disagreement about the common good.

    The point you are missing is that true libertarians consider the “common good” a meaningless, or at least worthless, concept.

    There is a serious debate within libertarianism as to whether it could be proper for the government to levy a tax to build a defence against a planet destroying asteroid unambiguously bearing down on Earth.

    True libertarians realise that once you accept the govt can tax to build an asteroid defence, then you accept as a matter of principle that it is within govt’s power to tax to prevent climate change, and you are actually on the slippery slope to allowing it to impose an individual mandate to get health insurance.

    The “libertarians” at the Cat don’t get this.

    Most of them supported Obama in 08, and they are all big spenders and regulators when you scratch them, but they call themselves “libertarian” because they think it gives them cred.

    But there is no principle to their libertarianism that is different to the principles of progressivism or modern social democracy.

  110. JC

    There is a serious debate within libertarianism as to whether it could be proper for the government to levy a tax to build a defence against a planet destroying asteroid unambiguously bearing down on Earth.

    why the hell would even need o levy a tax, Leslie. Donations would come in thick and fast.

    In that situation you wouldn’t require any taxation at all.

  111. Les Majesty

    why the hell would even need o levy a tax, Leslie. Donations would come in thick and fast.

    Maybe. I guess you could get the missile taking out the asteroid sponsored by Red Bull or something.

    But seriously, the fact that there would be free-loaders doesn’t bug you?

    How much of your net worth would you contribute to the anti-asteroid programme? How would you feel if the uni professor living next door decided not to contribute anything?

  112. John Mc

    True libertarians realise that once you accept the govt can tax to build an asteroid defence, then you accept as a matter of principle that it is within govt’s power to tax to prevent climate change, and you are actually on the slippery slope to allowing it to impose an individual mandate to get health insurance.

    Where do you start with this drivel?

    You’re comparing a certain and known astroid collision with earth, which is certain and known to significantly endanger human kind, with climate change. Nice try, fail. If you tried to tax people right now to build your astroid laser libertarians would oppose it.

  113. JC

    Most of them supported Obama in 08, and they are all big spenders and regulators when you scratch them, but they call themselves “libertarian” because they think it gives them cred.

    But there is no principle to their libertarianism that is different to the principles of progressivism or modern social democracy.

    Well no leslie, we’re not like you. We’re not social democrats.

    You’re entire philosophical screed above is based on a foundation of a false premise on which you build other false premises.

    There is no reason to consider the asteroid example as an illustration of common good. In fact if anything it suggests singular self interest. I’d donate a mozza in a situation like that to save my skin and that of my family. If common good is derived from it then that’s fine too. However I have no reason why I would consider a persons life in North Africa more important than my own to entice me to donate money. It would be my own life I would be saving.

    Lastly, as I said before, you would have no need to raise a tax.

    Common good is a fascist, collectivist concept and I frankly find it repulsive whenever I hear it.

    It’s also decidedly dishonest too. Why is the common good restricted to say the people that live in Australia? Why doesn’t it carry to people that are harder up living in dirt poor conditions. If the common good was carried to its logical conclusion more money would be devoted to supporting people living elsewhere that were hard up.

    In other words its just a redistribution racket to get money to the Left’s voting constituency, that’s all.

  114. John Mc

    But seriously, the fact that there would be free-loaders doesn’t bug you?

    Envy always features highly with lefties.

    This comes down to the debate is it worth your while. If your life is good and you’ve got the resources, you will pay to destroy the astroid. If people are poorer than that, to the point that they’re willing to take the chances that the astroid may miss, should they be forced to pay anyway?

  115. Les Majesty

    So the two of you would not support the levying of any tax to pay to destroy an asteroid?

  116. Les Majesty

    If the common good was carried to its logical conclusion more money would be devoted to supporting people living elsewhere that were hard up.

    Yeah, I’d support that. What’s your point?

  117. Les Majesty

    Envy always features highly with lefties.

    No, that’s not envy. You are just throwing words around.

  118. John Mc

    But there is no principle to their libertarianism that is different to the principles of progressivism or modern social democracy.

    This is really the one to have fun with, isn’t it?

    Libertarians believe that government should be kept to policing the things that are truly universal. More or less: life, liberty, property. Do you believe social democrats see it this way?

    Libertarians believe that individual behaviour should be regulated only to the level that permits people to get along without violence, everything else should be left to free individuals in civil society. Social democrats, anyone?

    You get the drift…

  119. JC

    You wouldn’t need to Leslie. There would be no reason to raise a tax as donations would more than cover it.

    You do realize that the US Navy at one stage was supported through a donation system, yea? That system wiped out the jihadi fuckers up and down the Barbary Coast.

  120. John Mc

    So the two of you would not support the levying of any tax to pay to destroy an asteroid?

    Sure. If the tax was 10c and there was a 100% chance of destroying the astroid about to hit earth, then I’m in.

    But that’s not what you’re suggesting, is it?

  121. Pingback: ILLUSIONS OF DEMOCRACY « DUCKPOND

  122. dover_beach

    When a specialist told me I had kidney disease, I did not endeavour to be expert in nephrology.

    Then why do you endeavour to be an expert on economics, or politics, and so on?

    I am prepared to take the consensus conclusions of the climate scientists,

    No, what you’re obviously doing is accepting the opinions of select climate scientists as the consensus of all climate scientists.

    True libertarians realise that once you accept the govt can tax to build an asteroid defence, then you accept as a matter of principle that it is within govt’s power to tax to prevent climate change, and you are actually on the slippery slope to allowing it to impose an individual mandate to get health insurance.

    Not at all, Les. As much as I believe an asteroid defense program is likely imprudent, it would nevertheless serve the common good, as opposed to private good. The same would also be true of climate change policy if it were more of a problem than it is. But a health insurance scheme serves no common good, it merely serves the private good of the individuals concerned. Similarly, one can distinguish a immunization program from a dental health program for the same reasons.

  123. .

    I don’t care what you do during earth hour Winston. You’re the one who’s paying for all the power you use in your rather sad protest.

    sdfc
    11 Mar 12 at 9:06 pm

    HAHAHAHA!

    What a loser. Going back to the dark ages makes you a hep cat eh?

    No wonder you’re a Keynesian wrecker of prosperity.

  124. Les Majesty

    But a health insurance scheme serves no common good, it merely serves the private good of the individuals concerned.

    Right. But that’s simply an argument over the empirical question of which policies lead to which outcomes.

    On the matter of principle, which is whether the state can tax for the common good, you are in agreement with the social democrats, as are probably all of the “libertarians” who post at the Cat.

  125. .

    …and Les you are probably posting insincere nonsense.

  126. JC

    There’s no such thing s common good Les. It’s a fascist concept.

  127. JC

    Les:

    Go get yourself Hayek’s book, The Fatal Conceit where he discusses and the superiority of the advantages of decentralized choice.

    You will learn why the common good concept is a pox and far inferior to leaving things well enough alone.

    Spend some time reading up about this shit.

  128. dover_beach

    Right. But that’s simply an argument over the empirical question of which policies lead to which outcomes. On the matter of principle, which is whether the state can tax for the common good, you are in agreement with the social democrats, as are probably all of the “libertarians” who post at the Cat.

    No, it isn’t. The distinction between the common and private good is conceptual; the outcomes are categorically different, so its not a matter of whether or not this or that policy achieves its intended outcome better so much as what set of outcomes is common or public, as distinct from private. You’re running this absurd argument that since the state can raise taxes for the common good (in order to fund, say, a legal system), this can somehow slide effortlessly into taxing for the private good (say, Obamacare). This is not even a cheap magician’s trick.

  129. .

    It’s pretty transparent and lame, isn’t it DB?

  130. Ally

    Are they going to turn the lights off at the footy?
    Remember when footy/tennis/rugby etc only used to be played during the day. Surely its a waste of electricity to play it at night. Not to mention how many carbon footprints? Hmmm.

Comments are closed.