Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?


Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Earth Day Climate Propaganda: Stuff the Data, Stuff the Science, Stuff the Panda - hey kids, look at that cute Panda!

Ross-Shire Journal
These children from a rural school in Scotland have been encouraged to switch lights off on 31st March, in order to 'support people and wildlife threatened by climate change'.

It is not difficult to spot the political campaigners who are coaching them in this nonsense.  And a regional council is on-board too, claiming that it 'hopes the effort will make people think about the energy they use, where it comes from and the impact that has on the environment and climate change.'
 (Source: Ross-Shire Journal)

Of course, the council and WWF are busy scheming to make that energy more expensive and less reliable thanks to the windfarms that are popping up in their territory to destroy wildlife, industrialise wild places, and discourage visitors and sensible industries from going anywhere near there.  Meanwhile, it is quite disgraceful that wealthy, un-accountable, biased, scaremongering, self-serving schemers like WWF have been allowed such access and influence on those youngsters.

This tiny example can no doubt be replicated in many thousands of locations worldwide, and this gives us a hint as to the extent of the  targeting of children by ruthless campaigners who will no doubt claim that they are protecting 'the world', or at least the Pandas if not the People.

The campaigners may well protect their Pension Plans by such actions, but I fear they may be bringing nought but harm to both People and Pandas, and for that matter, to Progress itself.

Note added 27 March 2012.  Earth Hour is no piece of fluffy symbolism dreamt up by nice but ill-informed people.  Instead
'Earth Hour was brought into this world by corporations
Launched in Sydney, Australia in 2007 there was never anything grassroots or shoestring about it. There’s no history of penniless activists toiling in obscurity, working their fingers to the bone, hoping against hope to attract attention to their cause.

Earth Hour is, instead, the brainchild of two large corporate entities – the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Fairfax Media Limited.'   Donna Laframboise
Note added 28 March 2012.  Donna explains the differences between Earth Hour and Earth Day: In any case, whereas Earth Day was the brainchild of a politician, Earth Hour (as I explain here) was brought into this world by wealthy corporations.http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/27/earth-hour-corporations-preaching-morality/


  1. Schoolkids and adults in Scotland will have to think about "the energy they use, where it comes from" when Scotland achieves the 80% reliance on "alternative energy" (surely that means an alternative TO energy?) that Alex "trust me" Salmond thinks will work. It won't be the teachers turning the lights off. Winters in Scotland are longer, darker, and much colder than we southern softies are used to.

    I recently saw tidal power acclaimed as "totally predictable", and it certainly is, though the article didn't mention something inconvenient called "slack water", four times a day, every day. Pass the Rose tinted spectacles. I wonder - do the proponents of wind, solar & tidal get emails announcing they've won a prize in a lottery they've never heard of, and excitedly send off the £1000 "to cover expenses"? They seem to be that gullible and ignorant of the facts.

  2. As far as I can tell, turning off lights can at most save 5% of the electricity we use. The usual argument goes that if we all turn them off, it saves more. It does not. 5% is 5%. If I use 1200 kw per month and cut 60 kw, and my neighbor uses 2000 kw and cuts 100kw, then we cut 160 kw out of 3400. It's always the same percentage. If a 5% cut is all it takes, are we really in over our heads that far? Doesn't seem like it. Sure, turning out the lights might be a good practice, but if that will save the planet, the planet is not in that much danger.