Last Saturday from 8:30-9:30 pm was "Earth Hour." Organized by the World Wildlife Fund, the event was supposed to be "a vote for the future of planet Earth," and organizers hoped every light in the world would be turned off for one hour at that time.
Unfortunately for the organizers, it seems that "Earth Hour" was a global bust.
Here is a picture of Times Square. The top is before "Earth Hour," the bottom is during it. See any difference?
In California, Roger Sowell examines the data and determines that "There was no apparent decrease in the power load throughout the state, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. No step changes, nothing, nada, zip, zilch."
In Australia, GreenWatch favorite Andrew Bolt tells us that electrical consumption in Melbourne did fall, but only by 2 percent. A year ago, it fell 10.1 percent.
Noted Global Warming denier Bjorn Lomborg penned an editorial in The Australian arguing that turning out the lights for Earth Hour would actually increase emissions if people turned to candlelight as a substitute.
And what did our favorite Global Warming icon Al Gore do for Earth Hour?
I pulled up to Al's house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm - right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.
In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching "Cheaters" or "Chelsea Lately" reruns.)
The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore's mansion.
I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn't be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.
It seems even Al Gore is getting tired of Global Warming Propaganda. Or maybe it's just that, as if with every other sacrifice he asks of regular Americans in this loony fight against global warming, he figures if everyone else does it, he won't have to.
Quote of the Week:
From a participant in the climate change conference in Copenhangen we covered last newsletter:
"Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do."
The Reader's Corner:
Last week we printed a well reasoned letter from one of our readers in the hope you would respond. And respond you did:
Gary Pinson, Apple Valley: "Spot on! I know Gordon Cooper and he is one of the smartest people I have ever met. Soft spoken and gentlemanly, but as a former Army Air Corps pilot during WWII and a retired Bio-Chemical Engineer, he is awesome!"
J Neel: "Thank you for printing Gordon's email .... what a wonderful response to all the "Dooms Day" articles lying about "Global Warming" to make a few rich, off the backs of we, the "Poor Taxpayers", who are footing the biggest "Give Away" program in the history of the world .... Al Gore just happens to be a co-owner of the company who would SELL the right for companies to emit their gases .... It sounds like Y-2K, all over again."
Bert Conner: "Gordon, I agree with you 100%. Water vapor is the most important item in the greenhouse family. It seems to be absent in a lot of studies. I have been looking at David Archibald's data, written in laymens terms, not being an advanced Physics individual.
"Personally, [I believe] AGW is now politically driven! Pure and simple! God help our checkbooks!"
James G. Monroe, Ph.D.: "While I do agree with Gorgon's comments, I think we must consider something else. There is not real scientific evidence that variations in CO2 are the result of human activity. The only person to hit on a solution seems to be ignored. Pope Benedict XVI has recommended tree planting to help eliminate the CO2. What we really need is a ban on any activity in the Amazon rain forest and an international effort to restore it. The destruction of the rain forest has done more to alter climate than any other human activity."
And finally, regarding our featured story last week, from a reader who neglected to leave his name, but I felt it should be run anyway (Remember readers, please send your name and location in with your comments!):
My question to Mr. Brown would be: Just how do you propose to achieve this 50% population reduction?
Controlling immigration would not achieve this goal as it only stops one group of people from migrating to the UK, but they are still having negative effects on the planet from another land mass.
Since a single generation is 20 to 25 years, would he suggest no babies be born in the UK at all? After this time span, most remaining women would be too old to procreate. Besides, the Global Warming believers say we do not have any time left before the planet is destroyed.
That leaves one very chilling (no pun intended) alternative. Selective thinning "of the herd", so to speak. Now, I wonder, just who would get to make this decision? Will he have a lottery? How about who pays for this and will he have to raise taxes to fund it? Who would be left to actually pay these taxes anyway? What if Mr. Brown's number were selected first, would he set a noble example and bravely march forth for the good of the planet?
All very perplexing questions. Another example of bogus science run amuck.Have a comment on a story this week? Would you like to see us cover a certain story or topic? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
The United Nations got on the "Earth Hour" band wagon this week, agreeing to go dark as part of the "largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted." They claimed that not only was the choice a "vote for the future of planet Earth," but that it would also save them money. A lot of money.
In fact, they claimed turning off the lights in the UN for Earth Hour would save them $81,000. Extrapolate that out. If they pay 81,000 dollars an hour for electricity, they would pay $1,944,000.00 per day, $58,320,000.00 or so per month, and $709,560,000.00 for the year.
After seeing that this initial projection of $81,000 dollars saved didn't quite add up, the UN reduced its estimate to $24,000 saved for the hour. But that too didn't come close to making sense, so they finally came out with a third estimate: Turning the lights off for Earth Hour would save the United Nations a grand total of $102.
Yeah, that sounds about right.