Earth Hour 2009 - March 28, 2009

[Space Patroller]

Here's a message I just received at work. (I work at an Ontario Courthouse.) This year's campaign is even more sickening than last year's. "See the world in a whole new light"???? In darkness, in other words. Like it used to be before there was electricity.

What have you seen or heard in connection with Earth Hour? Ever wonder why they don't do this at 12 noon on a weekday?

Environmentalisths have been trying to keep folks in the dark for 40 years (started with the Hippies in late '68)

Ditto the crackpots that get into government, plus this gives them a cheap moral feel-up.

The founding document and manifesto for these crackers is THE GREENING OF AMERICA

Read PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST 1971 by Richard Neuhouse of the Church and Laity Concerned: No friend of Ayn Rand they

Also ECO-TOPIA

From Reason Magazine April 1991: Warning Earth Day Ahead.

The Left: Old and New and The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Both from The Objectivist.

To see a brilliant example of the Sanction of the Victim read the editorial stuff from the Nationan Space Society's AD ASTRA, from Nov '90 to Apr '91. If this is what the star advocates of space travel had to offer, no wonder we're back to about 2 nothces from being planetbound again; maybe for keeps.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Okay, we're going to do a thought experiment.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it has been proven beyond any doubt that man's current level of industrial activity is having a negative impact on the environment, such that the earth will pass the point of no return within a decade and eventually become uninhabitable. For the sake of argument, there is virtually no one who disagrees with this...even you. Is it anti-man to call on people to conserve energy and encourage people to develop more environment-friendly ways of life?

This is how mainstream environmentalists view the situation.

Indeed this is how a lot of casual environmentalists also view it. But it hasn't been proven at all, or even established as possible. It's merely been asserted, and millions of people have fallen for it for some reason.

The data show that natural activity, such as that of volcanoes for example, produces more emissions annually than man's activity. The data also show that both colder and higher temperatures existed on Earth long before man's industrial activity was underway. Why hasn't someone proffered the idea that man's activity contributes to a tendency to reduce the extremities of temperature?

What makes people buy into environmentalism? On the surface it appears to be out of concern for their kids & grandkids, usually. I think that that concern has short-circuited people's ability to evaluate what they're being told and to take into account a lot of disparate facts. Probably it's been a cumulative effect of shoddy teaching methods at the grade school & higher levels, leaving people without a clear understanding of basic science. Definitely it is also a lack of understanding of the relationship between man's activities and the standard of living those activities achieve.

How, for example, has anyone come to the conclusion that something needs to be done about increased carbon dioxide? Why is that even considered a problem? There's nothing to be done, I mean, other than plant more trees and crops? An increase in CO2 could be considered a pre-requisite to cultivating more of the Earth's land, could it not? Perhaps instead of getting distraught over the increase, and trying to figure out ways to reduce it, we should instead be looking to use that CO2 and find ways to get potable water to places that don't have it or don't have enough. Economically viable methods, that is.

[Maximus]

"It's for the children..."

[Capitalism Forever]

It's merely been asserted, and millions of people have fallen for it for some reason.

[...]

What makes people buy into environmentalism? On the surface it appears to be out of concern for their kids & grandkids, usually. I think that that concern has short-circuited people's ability to evaluate what they're being told and to take into account a lot of disparate facts. Probably it's been a cumulative effect of shoddy teaching methods at the grade school & higher levels, leaving people without a clear understanding of basic science. Definitely it is also a lack of understanding of the relationship between man's activities and the standard of living those activities achieve.

I second all those reason you listed, but I think there is something even more fundamental: they have been conditioned by the dominant ethics (i.e. altruism) to automatically view man's productive activities as morally suspect and to assume that anyone who speaks out against them is on a "noble" and "idealistic" mission--and is therefore probably the one telling the truth.

[Capitalism Forever]

concern for their kids & grandkids, usually.

"It's for the children..."

With apologies to my fellow posters who hate her, I think Ann Coulter summed it up perfectly when she said, "Don't worry about the grandkids, they'll have their own planet."

[Maximus]

With apologies to my fellow posters who hate her, I think Ann Coulter summed it up perfectly when she said, "Don't worry about the grandkids, they'll have their own planet."

Well, I like to look at her, but then she has to open her mouth and ruin it.

[utabintarbo]

This phrase alone tempts me to disregard everything you say. Virtually anytime this phrase shows up in a debate of any kind, it is an indicator of one thing, and one thing only: dogmatism. Pure, unadulterated dogmatism. When you use this childish phrase, you are not accusing your opponent of being wrong. You are accusing him of being wrong on purpose. It is an accusation fundamentalist Christians use against non-believers. It is an accusation Muslims use against non-Muslims.

It is used frequently on this board, in support of all sorts of things, including capitalism. The problem with this statement is that it clouds the legitimacy of real arguments. If you're arguing with a socialist and you use this phrase, it clouds any rational argument that you make in favor of capitalism. Why? Because, firstly, the rest of the debate is likely to be taken up by him defending himself against the absurd accusation that he somehow "knows he's wrong," but continues to insist on the validity of known falsehoods. Secondly, as I've already said, it is the argument of religious fanatics who know they cannot use rational argumentation to convert their opponents.

Disagree with environmentalists/socialists all you want. But do not presume to know their innermost thoughts. Do not presume that they somehow know that they're wrong, but keep on professing falsehoods out of some inner evil that drives them to destroy value. Because, however ridiculous you may find their arguments, rest assured that they find yours just as ridiculous. And if you use an argument like that, they have every excuse to write you off as a religious nutjob, regardless of whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or an atheist. It makes people who use rational arguments against environmentalism/socialism look stupid, by virtue of their association with you.

...

This may be OT, but I think the use of this phrase, if anything, gives the subjects accused credit for being smart enough to know the difference. In actuality, they are either "being wrong on purpose", or they are simply too ignorant of the facts/science to be considered. Unfortunately, these same subjects are often politically powerful or influential, and must therefore be dealt with.

Inferring intent is not that terribly difficult either. If you can demonstrate that a "reasonable person" can determine that 2+2=4, and the subject flatly denies it, one can only conclude that the subject is "willfully" deciding to be ignorant of the obvious truth. This sort of thing happens in courts of law all the time, often with people's lives on the line (IIRC, it is the primary difference between 2nd & 3rd degree murder[iANAL]). Obviously, with different fact sets.

I think the problem lies with the definition of a "target market" for our rhetoric. If we accept that there is nothing likely to change Al Gore's mind on AGW, or the average Imam's mind re: atheism, we can focus our efforts on the rest of the audience, where we are more likely to find the occasional open mind. Pointing out their "willful ignorance" of the evidence, or the consequences of their stance is a perfectly valid method of showing (our target market) the folly of their ways.

[Jake_Ellison]

However silly the idea of "earth hour" is, it's even stupider to intentionally use more energy than you have a use for, just for the sake of making a statement. Firstly, because no one will know about it but you. Secondly, it will cause you to pay more money to your energy company. Thirdly, it's nihilistic to use up energy just for the sake of pissing people off. I disagree with PETA's wacko agenda, but I'm not gonna go out and kill squirrels just to make a point.

Big differences between the two scenarios:

- PETA is, for the most part, asking nicely that we stop harming animals. The EPA have Most Wanted lists, and taxes on greenhouse gases. They are a real and immediate threat to our way of life, in ways PETA couldn't eve dream of.

- killing squirrels for no reason would be a sick and self-destructive way to spend your day, for many of us. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong about leaving the lights on, especially since electric energy isn't something we'll run out of. If we need more, we can simply produce more-in fact, if anything, it's going to become easier to produce it as the years go by.

So the argument doesn't stand up. Though it's not similar either, I like the Nazi comparison a lot more: Would it have been wrong to spend energy to protest the killing of Jews during the Holocaust? Is it equally stupid to what the Nazi's did for Israel to stop for a minute every year in remembrance of the Holocaust?

The environmentalist movement is evil, and we need to do everything in our power to counter any and all efforts they attempt. A few dollars on my bill is well worth the symbolic gesture and satisfaction we'd get out of consuming more energy during that hour. Especially since it can and it will be measured how much electricity was used during this hour. Let's make sure there is a spike in electricity consumption, instead of a drop, on March 28 !!!

In fact, I'll create a dedicated thread on this forum on the 28th, and I hope many of you will be able to report at least a tripling of your energy use during that hour. I'll even post the right times for the different time zones, since this is a global event.

[edit] Saturday, before you leave for a night out for instance, is a perfect time to do the laundry, or for a quick vacuuming, if you don't want to completely waste the energy.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[AllMenAreIslands]

I second all those reason you listed, but I think there is something even more fundamental: they have been conditioned by the dominant ethics (i.e. altruism) to automatically view man's productive activities as morally suspect and to assume that anyone who speaks out against them is on a "noble" and "idealistic" mission--and is therefore probably the one telling the truth.

That is a good point too, but I think most people would be unable or unwilling to comprehend the concept and acknowledge it as being true for them. It's a description of how information, codes of conduct, and values are transmitted from one generation to the next. And the way you put it, it sounds like everyone who thinks that way is behaving like a brainless sheep, so again, few people would recognize themselves as one of the sheeple, or if they did, would be willing to admit it.

In other words, it's too deep for most people.

But that is what we're up against. The way into people's minds is tricky - people don't want to change for one thing, and they've accepted all kinds of contradictory ideas for another, yet don't want to look too closely at those contradictions for fear of seeing everything fall apart (never mind that the reverse would occur: they would finally be able to make sense of it all.)

After all isn't saying that our environment is the grass, the trees, the sky and the sun just a nicer way of saying, "homeless"?

[Capitalism Forever]

After all isn't saying that our environment is the grass, the trees, the sky and the sun just a nicer way of saying, "homeless"?

LOL, very true!

[Zip]

This message is brought to you by the environmental movement.

http://www.aniboom.com/video/1224/Humans..._campaign=embed

Thanks to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for the link.

[01503]

This message is brought to you by the environmental movement.

http://www.aniboom.com/video/1224/Humans&a..._campaign=embed

Thanks to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for the link.

Ugh, that's just disgusting. Leave it to the viros.

[K-Mac]

I wish the types of people that like and agree with that video would kill themselves. It sure would make the Earth a better place.

[01503]

I wish the types of people that like and agree with that video would kill themselves. It sure would make the Earth a better place.

That's ultimately what they want. But they want to take everyone else down with them.

[Marc K.]

I'm late to the game but I wanted to at least make this first point.

For all the criticism that Al Gore and his ilk get for being religious fanatics, there is nothing less fanatic about refusing to recognize that energy usage has any negative impact, whatsoever, on the environment and, therefore, our ability to live comfortably in it.

This is exactly the premise that causes environmentalists to be anti-man.

We live more comfortably in a world that uses energy; the more energy we use, the more comfortable we are.

Our ability to live is enhanced by our usage of energy; the more energy we use, the more able we are to live.

There is not only a direct correlation between amount of energy used and life expectancy, there is a cause and effect relationship. Achievement can be measured by how much energy you use and the progress of a culture can be measured by the amount of energy it uses.

A little bit of so called "pollution" is the necessary by-product of energy usage. There is a natural solution built into the markets of a free economy: to become more efficient. Efficient means: producing more while using the same amount of energy, which decreases "pollution". And of course every rational businessman wants to be more efficient as it improves his bottom line. The businesses that aren't efficient die.

Notice however that even as businesses and entire business sectors become more efficient, in general, total energy usage (of a free country or rational society let's say) still increases. Think of it this way: energy usage can also be a measure of productive capacity. So when a business becomes more efficient and uses less energy, that means that some productive capacity has been freed-up, which can then be utilized somewhere else to make our lives even more comfortable, which is just what happens.

So we should rue the day that our country starts to use less energy -- it will be the death knell of our society.

So your premise is wrong, energy usage has NO negative impact whatsoever. In fact it has a positive impact on man's environment. We live much longer in an environment that uses lots of energy. People die much faster in societies that use little energy. I am grateful that I live in a country where cheap, abundant energy is available. Beware of anyone who wishes you to use less energy, they do not wish you well.

Then there is this:

Okay, we're going to do a thought experiment.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it has been proven beyond any doubt that man's current level of industrial activity is having a negative impact on the environment, such that the earth will pass the point of no return within a decade and eventually become uninhabitable. For the sake of argument, there is virtually no one who disagrees with this...even you. Is it anti-man to call on people to conserve energy and encourage people to develop more environment-friendly ways of life?

This is how mainstream environmentalists view the situation. Where you disagree with them is on whether or not man-made global warming is proven. But, if you assume that it is proven beyond any doubt, then to call this philosophy anti-man is ridiculous. In fact...I might go so far as to call it...dogmatic.

Now what you're going to do is try to assert that Al Gore, et al are not motivated by wanting to save the earth, but by hatred of capitalism. Well, for some environmentalists that is probably true. Is it for Al Gore? I don't know. But neither do you. You cannot read his thoughts. There are people who generally favor free markets who still believe in man-made global warming and think that steps should be taken to combat it. [emphasis added]

As I've already pointed out: industrial activity has a positive impact on our environment. So to call this a fantastic hypothetical would be giving fantastic hypotheticals a bad name.

Also, this isn't how "mainstream environmentalists" view the situation. They suppose that the earth's temperature may rise 2 or 3 degrees in the next century.

But the main point to raise in dealing with this scenario is where I've added the emphasis: the "steps that should be taken". Most of these people want to use government force to correct the issue. Which brings us back to environmentalists being anti-man.

It doesn't matter whether they think they are being anti-man or not, objectively speaking they are anti-man. They want to tax people to discourage their life enhancing behavior in order to save the wilderness. They want to sacrifice man to nature.

This came at the end of that last long quote:

The worst kind of childish behavior, in any kind of debate, is to assume that you understand your opponent's subconscious motivations.

I just wanted to point out to you that earlier you had said this:

Al Gore may be a blowhard, but he and the people who follow him truly believe that their ideas will end up saving mankind.

You said this very facetiously and condescendingly:

Right, because the earth has an infinite amount of natural resources. Got it.

and actually it is true.

The resource is not oil or coal but energy. And for all intents and purposes concerning man, the earth has an infinite amount of resources.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

This message is brought to you by the environmental movement.

The only thing I agree with in that video is that Earth is just the beginning.

[Nacirema]

This message is brought to you by the environmental movement.

http://www.aniboom.com/video/1224/Humans&a..._campaign=embed

Thanks to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for the link.

To the ending of the video:

What f*cking environment is there to "ruin" on the moon?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Capitalism Forever

[Tenzing_Shaw]

To the ending of the video:

What fucking environment is there to "ruin" on the moon?

That was definitely one of the more revealing parts of the video, as if it wasn't revealing enough already. The obvious implication is that they don't even care about other living things (let alone about humans). They don't care about anything; their goal is a negative: to wipe out reason from the universe.

[Capitalism Forever]

What f*cking environment is there to "ruin" on the moon?

Pristine wilderness, you see. They are concerned that man might go there and soil it with chemicals like CO2, O2, and H2O, and disturb its fragile ecosystem by importing non-indigenous species of plants and animals. I'm not kidding: I have seen a photo of the Las Vegas Valley, which highlighted the contrast between the lush green colors of the city and the lifeless brown of the surrounding desert, commented on as "what a disgrace" or something to that effect. What more evidence does anyone need that these people are not pro-life but anti-man?

[TheEgoist]

Since I didn't notice much opposition to Earth Hour on Facebook, I decided to create an event for the anti-Earth Hour idea.

Humans Opposed To Earth Hour

It does say HUMAN, but even aliens can join!

[Space Patroller]

The only thing I agree with in that video is that Earth is just the beginning.

This explains my misgivings when the eco's weren't exterminated en masse 25 hears ago.. Applying the concept of health to an inanimate thing and using the highest from of life as a threat to that health....and we let that live? HOw do you reason with that? you don't, you put it in the ground.

I took the address. I can run that through my YouTube Audio Capture and generate an mp3 of the audio. I hope someone downleaded it. we could use it and it may disappear. The rule of the Intenet is "Here Today; Gone Tomorrow".

This would be somethig good to ship off to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck or Boortz to play on the show and put on their websites. As well as rub the noses of the RNC into.

[Benpercent]

Since I didn't notice much opposition to Earth Hour on Facebook, I decided to create an event for the anti-Earth Hour idea.

Humans Opposed To Earth Hour

It does say HUMAN, but even aliens can join!

There is also an event there titled "Edison Hour" which advocates the exact same methods of protest.

[TheEgoist]

Haha, yes. I found two right after making that post.

[Zip]

How could I ever have thought these people were anti-man?

We're a heartbeat away from...

"Put your baggage on zee left, and move to zee showers on your right! You vill be reunited mit your loved ones soon enough!"

I wish I meant that to be more humorous.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.

For those of you paying attention that is over a 50% reduction in Brittan's current population, not its projected population. As the article notes, back to about the level of Victorian England.

[utabintarbo]

Gee, I wonder how they propose to attain that level of decrease....