The Hour of the Planet: Turn Off Your Lights for an Hour to Save the Planet?

On Saturday, March 28, 2009, the third annual "Hour of the Planet," was observed worldwide, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The idea was to sponsor a type of demonstration in which cities around the world would turn off the lights in various public buildings or at least dim them, in an effort to "raise consciousness about global warming caused through excessive emissions of greenhouse gases," according to MSN news sources. The Hour of the Planet was said to have taken place between 8:30 and 9:30 pm.

In an effort to make the whole global warming argument more palatable to the average citizen, it seems that many of the environmentalists now refer to the global warming threat as "climate change." By referring to the global warming threat as "climate change," they can silence their detractors who point out anomalies in weather patterns by claiming that "on average, the global temperature has gone up 1 or 2 degrees centigrade in the last ten years." But is all this alarmism about global warming or climate change a valid concern? Or is it simply to advance a social agenda conceived by various environmental organizations? And if it is a social agenda that is being pursued, what is it?

One of the stated goals of the WWF is to influence world governments so that they take action against the global warming threat. In a direct quote taken from MSNBC, the CEO of WWF says the following: "With Earth Hour, millions of people from all walks of life will demonstrate their commitment to take action on climate change," WWF CEO Carter Roberts said in a statement. "Turning off the lights is just the beginning. We're asking everyone to also make commitments to reduce their energy use during the rest of the year and to ask their elected representatives to do the right thing because we need climate legislation now."

So in simplest terms, all of us need to reduce our energy use in order to save the planet. Shutting off the electricity, even if it's for just one hour, ostensibly cuts down on the fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas that are emitting the harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus causing the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. It's interesting to note that such notable actors as Kevin Bacon and Cate Blanchett support the WWF in their crusade to influence climate legislation.

The WWF, in their attempt to make their Earth Hour sound like an overwhelming consensus of the population that the planet is being devastated by greenhouse gases, claimed that "hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide, turned off or dimmed their lights for an hour on Saturday night," according to the MSNBC news report. How could something like this be measured objectively? While it appears to be true that the Empire State Building in New York and the Sears Tower in Chicago either "went dim or dark," on Saturday, March 28, 2009, and that spokespersons associated with these structures made statements supporting the WWF agenda, how would anyone passing by these buildings know that these two buildings were part of a worldwide demonstration during that hour?

An interesting point to be made about the objectivity of the WWF's argument that the planet is "in danger," is that an opposing group known as the "Competitive Enterprise Institute," decided to celebrate the "Human Achievement Hour," during the same time that the "Hour of the Planet" was being observed, and the Human Achievement Hour's entry in Wikipedia was deleted, due to complaints from those supporting the Hour of the Planet, according to the Heartland Institute's website.

The activism of the WWF in promoting what amounts to a global warming scare, neglects to cover opposing viewpoints in order to achieve a real consensus about just what constitutes global warming. For example, some 800 scientists convened in New York from March 8 to March 10, 2009 to confront issues raised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Here are some brief facts mentioned from this group of scientists that should debunk much of the global warming scare:
Over the last 100 years, scientists have concluded that temperatures have only risen about .6 degrees Centigrade or about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Predictions of a 6 degree centigrade rise in temperatures over the next 100 years are at the extreme end of an IPCC study, and that according to both James Hansen, the "father of greenhouse theory," and Richard Lindzen of MIT and a world renowned climatologist, that a global increase in temperatures of about 1 degree centigrade in the next 100 years is the most likely possibility. One degree centigrade! And that prediction assumes that "nothing is done," i.e., government intervention, "to restrict greenhouse gases." These quotes come from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Also interesting to note, when attempting to get at the truth of whether global warming is a threat or not, are newsworthy items such as a top official from the IPCC resigning in protest over mischaracterization of the global warming threat in January of 2006 following Hurricane Katrina.

Perhaps some people may consider the Competitive Enterprise Institute just as biased in its assessment that global warming isn't a threat as does the WWF in insisting that it is. But when you have experts such as James Hansen and Richard Lindzen, the latter of whom was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying in answer to those concerned with global warming that "what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred...it isn't just that the alarmists (global warming activists such as the WWF) are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming," that perhaps the activists proclaiming a global warming threat are not engaging in an altruistic activity to save the planet, but are simply trying to change people's behavior through draconian, government-enforced regulations. For example, another stated goal of those concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, is the regulated enforcement of emissions to pre-1990 levels. In order to achieve something like this, new taxes on consumer energy use would be introduced to discourage excess consumption. How would the determination be made as to what constitutes excessive energy use?

Given that the amount of global warming known to exist in the last 100 years has only boosted temperatures about 1 degree Fahrenheit and less than 1 degree Centigrade, and that the next 100 years are likely to see about the same level of increase, does the world really have a global warming threat? Or do environmental groups like the WWF simply like to gin up a bogus global warming scare in order to increase the level of donations? By its own admission at its website, the WWF operates on a budget of $196.5 million! Interesting to note that about $26 million came from "government awards." With that much money at stake, it's no wonder this huge environmental organization needs the support of Hollywood actors such as Cate Blanchett, Kevin Bacon, and Edward Norton!

Now, compare the comments made earlier by respected climatologist Richard Lindzen and this comment from Richard Moss, the WWF's "Climate Change Vice-President": "We have satellites and we have ships out at sea and we have monitoring stations set up on buoys in the ocean,...we monitor all kinds of things people wouldn't even think about. The scientific research is showing in all kinds of ways that the climate crisis is worsening." Admittedly, VP Moss is a member of a Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC, but cites no scientific data, such as "the earth's temperature is increasing at 6 degrees centigrade." The notion that we should cut back on our utility usage and show signs of solidarity by turning out the lights for an hour every year in response to a generalized statement that "scientific research is showing in all kinds of ways that the climate crisis is worsening," without anything more specific than that, just doesn't seem to make sense.