The Daily Switch

  • Pages

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,006 hits
  • Advertisements

Earth Hour 60 Minutes Too Long

Posted by maker on March 31, 2009

If you have had the pleasure of getting to have to sit through an esurance commercial recently, you are probably aware that Friday March 27th marked what was touted as ‘Earth Hour’.  This was nothing more than an hour of self-congratulatory, symbolic ‘abstinence’ from any use of electricity. The reason for this ‘world wide’ statement was to help curb the effects of man-made global warming. The following day snowstorms ravaged Texas, which begs the obvious question. Did the environmentalists overreach?

Of course the two had nothing to do with one another, as it is becoming increasingly evident, man-made carbon emissions had nothing to do with the warming trend we experienced in the 90s that has somehow gone missing of late. So why all the fuss? In the rush to save the world and ultimately ourselves, we seem to have forgotten to ask if it (or we) really needs saving.

Scarier than global warming?

Ignorance is bliss

Propaganda is easy. If anyone says otherwise, simply observe Michael Moore and his burgeoning protege Al Gore. What they lack in intelligence, charm or talent, they more than make up for in hubris and outright lies. If propaganda isn’t easy, how do we explain Al Gore’s Nobel Prize? But here lies the beauty and ease of Al’s and Michael’s positions. Make outlandish claims loudly enough, or with the right hint of serious monotone, and you don’t have to be right. Heck, you can even make a ‘scientific documentary’ that includes CGI laden clips from a disaster movie about the next ice age and be hailed as a seer, if your politics are correct. Where are the shouts of, ‘Proof, proof, give us proof!’ ? Or at the very least, ‘Why is it so damn cold?’ How is it that CNN and other ‘serious’ news stations consult Michael Moore for his opinion on myriad topics despite his admission of being nothing more then a propagandist dressed as a documentarian? Why is no one held to account for the horrendous inaccuracy in the ‘evidence’ of melting ice caps? Why is ‘global warming’ a given when nothing definitive even suggests it?

Much to the contrary of Al’s seminal work, the answer to these questions seems to be that ‘global warming’ is a very convenient lie. A crowning achievement in the left’s long line of exaggerations, half-truths, contrivances and complete fabrications all in the name of empowering the government to control and protect us from ourselves.

I am not writing to say that this issue has been decided.  I am writing to say there is no issue to decide. It is as if we have all been convicted of a crime that no one can prove occurred (for a similar case read this by ender). Until a crime has been proved I refuse to stand trial and so should you.

Keep reading The Daily Switch in the weeks and months ahead for more on environmental fascism. We’ll delve into, not only the comical inanity of it all, but the very real dangers as well.

18 Responses to “Earth Hour 60 Minutes Too Long”

  1. Sue said

    I like to buy carbon offsets so I can pollute as much as I want with out all the guilt. My psyche can’t take it.

  2. Locke said

    I like to sell carbon credits online to all the suckers. Little do they know that everytime I sell one I let my car run for an hour. The price people are willing to pay for these things more than covers the cost for the wasted gas.

  3. LoLo said

    Agree totally. Global warming is an excuse for a power grab and issuing in a one world government. See this article about the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Our previous presidents had the wisdom not to sign that. I have no hope for the current one.,2933,510937,00.html

  4. Michael said

    I’m not sure if i can agree with that Earth Hour article any deeper than the initial argument. One hour of no electricity is about as effective as people who try to boycott Exxon, thinking it’ll drive gas prices down.
    The article targets Michael Moore for one, an easy target, being the Left’s version of Rush. Al Gore at least makes good arguments, but doesn’t give people ways to change their Own lives.
    The article makes one argument i love, but i think it’s for a different reason: “empowering the government to protect and control us from ourselves” is only happening because most individuals don’t seem to care, or be willing to change their own lifestyles. If people demanded environmental stability instead of new cars and bigger tv’s, we would have it. And not because the government told us to.

  5. Josh said

    This is an interesting survey of climate scientists about climate change published late last year.
    The basic gist is that nearly everyone agrees that the earth has been warming and the majority believe that human activity is a contributing factor, but there is a lot of variation about the relative imminent dangers of climate change and how much we can realistically do about it (most scientists seem to think, not much. It is important to note that only 5% of scientists surveyed “believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming” which hardly suggests that “it is becoming increasingly evident, man made carbon emissions had nothing to do with the warming trend we experienced in the 90s that has somehow gone missing of late.” Like nearly every other issue, beliefs about climate change fall along a spectrum, not an all or nothing, line-in-the-sand sort of standoff. Believing that humans have nothing to do with climate change, just like believing The Day After Tomorrow is anything more than science fiction, puts you on the fringe of the debate, not in the thick of it.
    It is also interesting that climate scientists don’t have much good to say about the media depictions of climate change, although Al Gore’s documentary scored the best, with a hardly confidence inspiring 26% finding it “very reliable.”

  6. Mike said

    I personally take great pride in what I was able to during Earth Hour. I turned off my TV, sacrificing American Idol, to save wild flowers, baby bunnies, and unicorns. I sat in the dark and sang show tunes by candle light.

  7. Ender said


    Here’s the thing, using phrases like “nearly everyone agrees” holds up horrible in the realm of scientific history. Nearly everyone agrees is a wordy way to say consensus. Should we take a stroll through history to see what scientists have had consensus on? There was a scientific consensus on: The Earth being flat, the Sun revolving around the Earth, that we were approaching an ice age in the 70s, that we were reaching overpopulation in the 80s, that there would be mass starvation in the 80s, N rays and polywater. The list goes on and on and on.

    The problem is that consensus is not scientific proof of anything. All it does give agenda driven politicians, scientists, activists and media a reason to cause panic. It’s funny how simple questions and facts are ignored by people who want to believe that humans are causing global warming. Facts like: while one pole is shrinking the other is growing, how the highest carbon levels found in ice were dated at time prior to the industrial revolution, how the cow population creates more “disastrous” methane each year than mankind creates carbon (methane is even more harmful, supposedly), how there are hundreds of scientists who don’t believe in it, how if we followed the Kyoto protocol to the letter we would only affect the Earth’s temperature by 7/100 of a degree (which is nearly unmeasurable), how the Jupiter and other planets are also warming (did we cause that too?). Somehow, the largest supplier of energy, light and warmth is not the cause…well, at least that’s what the consensus says.

  8. Josh said

    The problem is that you’re going in reverse with the consensus thing. As evidence comes in about climate change the consensus among scientists grows toward believing that it’s true, just as increasing evidence led scientists to believe that the earth is round and not the center of the universe, germs make us sick, matter is made of atoms, etc. The more evidence comes in, the more the consensus grows toward accepting man made climate change is real, not away from it.
    Personally, I believe that man made climate change is real, but not the primary reason, and not necessarily apocalyptic. While I think that we should emphasize research in efficient green technology, I don’t have a lot of time for the Kyoto protocol and whatever is meant to follow it. That’s a lot of money much better spent on much more pressing problems.
    My comment was primarily meant to play devil’s advocate a little – to maybe prod the debate into something a little more nuanced than The End is Near vs. Drill, Baby, Drill. Reading through the site, I’ve been happy to find that it the writing is uniformly excellent and the arguments passionately presented, but the tone is too often reactionary and occasionally drifts into the kind of snarky writing that is more about eviscerating straw men than advancing the debate. There are enough Ann Coulters around already. Both of the contributors to your site have the knowledge, passion, and certainly the skill to be better than that. I’m looking forward to keeping up with it.

  9. Don Juan DeMarco said

    This may be a bit of a rabbit trail from the initial argument on global warming, but some things need to be addressed. First, there was never a consensus of a flat earth, this is one of the greatest historical myths. There were a few believers of it, but primarily people knew it was round.

    One of the things that I love about conservatism is that it recognizes the innate greediness, selfishness, or just plain “not good”ness of people. This being the case I do not think a “one world goverment” is coming anytime soon. Our president is not about to sign over the country to anyone, nor is any other leader going to give us the keys to their kingdom. I think it may be a bit paranoid to give any credence to this conspiracy.

  10. mattbenchener said

    This is an honest question: Why do liberals line up on the side of global warming, and conservatives against it? What does conservatism have to do with climate change? What does liberalism have to do with carbon reduction? The only thing I can think of is that liberals favor more government control, so they would favor government intervention to ‘help’ the environment–i.e. environmental activism. But that has nothing to do with the actual debate of whether or not climate change is occuring. Unless you think global warming is a left wing conspiracy to control government, but that doesn’t seem very rational.

  11. maker said


    First of all, welcome to The Daily Switch. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

    The comparison of Moore and Limbaugh is a common one, but its frequency does not legitimize it. You then seem to elevate Gore above the two with your line about him making good points. What specifically about Rush Limbaugh prompts you to equate him with the likes of Michael Moore and below Al Gore? People are consistently big on criticism when it comes to Rush but shockingly small on supporting facts. I’d be interested to see if you could prove me wrong.

    What about our environment seems unstable to you? Isn’t it possible that people are not choosing to live ‘green’ because they are not convinced there is any reason for it? Do you believe that ‘global warming'(beyond normal ebbs and flows exhibited throughout history) 1) exists and 2)is man-made?

  12. maker said


    What evidence? Seriously, what undisputed, concrete evidence even suggests that the warming period, that has already passed, was anything other than a normal fluctuation? So much of what you have stated hinges on beliefs, that much maligned crutch of the religious. We are speaking of science and should, one would think, be relying upon data.

    What is wrong with eviscerating straw men, especially when they characterize said debate, especially when they are treated as foundational principles, not straw men at all?

    So for now, thanks for the back-handed compliments, but is the condescension warranted?

  13. maker said


    The best answer to your question may be to direct you to our article The Modern Liberal Defined

    There is another point to be made in response to your question. No one on this site has ever accused Liberalism, or the left at large, of being rational.

  14. Josh said

    What’s wrong with eviscerating straw men is that a straw man isn’t real – it is a dishonestly oversimplified, easily deconstructed representation of your opponents argument. Straw men don’t characterize a debate, they misrepresent it. What I am objecting to is the tendency to constantly demand specific “undisputed, concrete evidence” while offering broad and occasionally insulting generalizations in return. It’s intellectually dishonest to bring a sledgehammer to a debate and demand that your opponent fight back with a scalpel.
    As for the evidence, I’ll admit I don’t have the specifics. The reason I posted the link above is because it is a survey of climate scientists, not of public opinion, or “belief,” if you like. These are people who do nothing all day but examine the evidence available and make the best projections they can, because that’s what scientists do. It is common misconception that the aim of science is to absolutely, concretely prove things. Science can’t “prove,” for example, that gravity will always work, it can only suggest that it has worked the same way up until now, and according to the available evidence, it will go on keeping us circling the sun for the foreseeable future. It can, however, disprove the statement that the earth is carried on the back of an Olympian god, because that is observably not true. The scientific method is more useful for disproving things than proving them, and the idea that some irresponsible human activity effects the climate detrimentally has not been disproved, nor does it seem likely to be according to the current data.
    Let me be clear: While I can’t completely agree with you on climate change, I hope you are right. I think it is certainly true that cosmic events like solar activity are much more influential than human activity when it comes to climate change. (But I can’t prove it.) I believe that for most of the world, environmentalism is a luxury, not a responsibility. However, I think that everyone has a responsibility to understand that we are bound to the land we inhabit and to the other people on it, and that our actions have consequences. As a Christian, I believe that we are meant to be stewards of the earth, not exploiters, and that if it is suggested that we could do a better job of it, then we have an obligation to at least examine the suggestion carefully.
    I did not join this discussion to point a finger in your face and shout, “No!” but rather to stand next to you and say “Yes, but…” As for my earlier compliments, I assure you that they were meant sincerely and I apologize if my tone seemed condescending. If I didn’t mean what I said about the site’s quality, I wouldn’t read it, and I certainly wouldn’t bother joining the discussion. The internet is saturated with mediocre political forums, but this is not one of them.

  15. maker said


    The point is that the opposition too often is exactly characterized by strawmen. Unfortunate as it may be, we can only respond to the arguments placed before us. In the debate on ‘global warming’ my request for evidence is merely a search for something deeper than the hypothetical imaginings prompted by a spittle mouthed Al Gore, and thus stronger than the strawmen currently available. You seem to be saying that strawment can only be created by the people who argue against them. I submit to you that the arguments posed thus far are so weak that they only appear that way. I am willing to listen to your argument about the ‘hammer’ and ‘scalpel’ but urge you to consider this…

    In a recent debate, Christopher Hitchens made the excellent argument that in the debate over the existence of something not concretely proven, the burden is not on the skeptic, but on the believer. He also goes on to point out that especially based on the ramifications of the question posed (in this case completely changing our way of life, economy, governance in exchange for a possible degree or two of difference in temperature, etc.) the better option is disbelief.

    Taking your line of thinking on science disproving things rather than proving things, I amend my request for concrete proof of man-made ‘global warming’ to read “please offer some evidence that disproves that the, since passed, warming trend in question was simply part of the earth’s normal ups and downs, not unlike the cooling of the ’70s”.

    Let me also be clear: While I reject completely the idea that ‘global warming’ exists as a man-made effect on God’s creation, I am in no way opposed to reasonable measures of conservation and environmental awareness and stewardship. I am not calling for more oil spills. I do see this as a politically motivated tool for an unprecedented power grab. Should we all do our part to keep our surroundings clean and unharmed? Sure. Should the government be involved in changing behaviors other than the most egregious offenses? Absolutely not. If the ‘global warming’ movement were not political I would not be up in arms about it.

    I apologize for misinterpreting the tone of what I characterized as ‘back-handed compliments’. Thanks for the kind words and the high praise. We will continually strive to stay above the fray and hopefully raise the level of the debate. Please continue to read an comment

  16. Ender said


    “As evidence comes in about climate change the consensus among scientists grows toward believing that it’s true” This is false.

    Since you are using a consensus of a mere 500 scientists as the basis to your beliefs, would you be willing to change if I gave you a bigger list?

    Well here’s 31,000…

    The problem I have with your reasoning is that it seems as if you have already made up your mind. When presented with specifics that don’t fit in with your theory you don’t change your mind or even question your belief.

    The thing is, I’m not a scientist, but I have read and listened to numerous views from both sides of this argument. The more I research the more it looks like a big scam. One of the leading scientists (Dr. Hansen) behind the global warming theory has been forced to revise his numbers several times due to blatant data manipulation. His work was also used to “prove” the global cooling theory in the 70s. I for one won’t be throwing in my lot with people like that. All I can say is look into the other side of the argument.

  17. Josh said

    31,000 is a certainly a number worth giving a second look. So I did, with one eye on this curious statement from the article you linked to:
    “It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not a few.”
    Fair enough. But it is also evident that someone with a university degree in science is not the same thing as a scientist. And its definitely not the same thing as a specialized climate researcher.
    What I discovered, pretty easily, is that this particular survey is actually ten years old, and is a fairly infamous bit of smoke and mirrors in the history of the climate debate. One of the gentler rebukes can be found here:

    There are plenty of reasons to doubt the validity of the Oregon Petition, but for me, this is the most damning:

    “When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists,geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, ‘and of those the greatest number are physicists.’ This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists.”

    Also, how many “scientists” received the petition but refused to sign it? Arthur Robinson isn’t telling.

    Look, there may well be better evidence than this petition that human activity has no discernible effect on the climate. I hope there is. As I’ve already said in my overlong comment above, I probably agree with you more than I disagree with you on this issue. What I objected to specifically was this statement in the original post: “as it is becoming increasingly evident, man-made carbon emissions had nothing to do with the warming trend we experienced in the 90s that has somehow gone missing of late.”

    That statement is becoming increasingly evident only to those who have already decided it is true.

    What I have come to object to more as I’ve become increasingly involved in this discussion is exactly what you have charged me with – the entrenched position that treats any disagreement as opposition, and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must not really be thinking about it.
    I believed for a long time that global warming was a hoax, and it was only when I finally bothered to question my beliefs about it that I began to change my mind, however slightly. I still don’t think the Kyoto protocol would have been worth following, and I’m not convinced that we have sent the planet into an unrecoverable death spiral. But to simply insist that we’re not guilty of any climate-related mischief at all is not the only reasonable alternative.

  18. Ender said

    Hmmm…I didn’t realize the history on that suvery. Thanks for the rebuttal. I’ll reiteritate that I wasn’t basing my beliefs on that or any other survey of consensus, but I did find it interesting. I’d like to write a more detailed post on why I disagree with the man made gloabal warming, but will need to find the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: