1. Davis | 03.27.09

It is becoming increasingly difficult to perceive which day of which month is Fool’s Day.

2. A | 03.28.09

Another question is how adjustable are power plants? If power consumption goes down a bit for 1 hour can they actually burn less fuel in power plants? Or will plants just use same amount of fuel since change is so small and short term?

3. cxxczzcx | 03.28.09

imagine if we could harness the power of ************ and use it to clean up the environment.

wait never mind

4. EbilPhish | 03.28.09

You know its not like the powerplants actually burn less coal when the usage drops. They don’t put aside a few lumps or anything. If enough people turned of their lights it could actually cause a turbine to get turned off, starting it up again would use more power than the amount saved.

Not to mention the people driving around to earth hour parties/events/celebrations or feeling like they made a difference then not doing anything else.

5. Andrea | 03.28.09

I plan on turning every light on in my house, and backyard, period. I am sick of the paranoid trying to dictate how I should live, from what detergent to buy for my house, to what light bulbs for my table lamps, the ironic thing is, as soon as I saw the request that we turn off our lights for an hour I realized that burning candles or using a flashlight was more detrimental for the environment than just leaving my house lights on. I have to concur with Davis, it is becoming more and more difficult to perceive which day of month is FOOL’S DAY!

I refuse to jump on bandwagon and buy the crazed light bulbs full of mercury for my house, I refuse. I just wonder when they start to dictate where we can dispose of the mercury laden bombs who will stand to benefit. I am sure Gore the Bore will have a company sit up that we can mail them to once they have burned out which will more than likely charge a substantial fee for their disposal properly. What a ruse, those light bulbs are, idiots.

6. stacey | 03.28.09

that’s a bit cynical - if anything at least there is an awareness that this planet has a problem!

7. Alex | 03.28.09

You’re omitting to mention that the carbon is released by GENERATING the electricity, not by USING it. Does anyone thing that power stations are going to shut down for an hour? This whole thing will not reduce carbon emissions at all.

8. Klingon | 03.28.09

Turn off your lights, you morons. Guess what? The power plants will STILL be running! Does addlepated thinking cause Liberalism, or is it the other way around?

9. Carey | 03.28.09

The point of Earth Hour isn’t for everyone to switch to candles for an hour. If you absolutely need candles for something, then go ahead, but most people shouldn’t be lighting up candles. The net effect will still be Earth-positive. Its about not leaving the TV on when no one’s watching, or the lights on when no one’s in the room (or the house). One of the points is to make you aware of how much energy you waste. This whole argument that people are harming the Earth more with candles is ridiculous. Not everyone will be using candles constantly, and even the people that would create more CO2 with candles than lights still support the overall movement because it is one of solidarity and bringing things into awareness through a unified action of the global community.

10. Bill | 03.28.09

“Addlepated” thinking.

Great word !

11. realistTheorist | 03.28.09

The title asks: “Does lighting candles for Earth Hour defeat the purpose?”

That depends on what one thinks the purpose is. Surely, the purpose of environmentalists is not efficient exploitation of the Earth by humans. Rather, like many ideologies across the centuries, the ideology is about holding sacrifice up as an ideal.

Environmentalists want man to return to a more primitive state, because they think this is intrinsically good.

This ARI op-ed says it better than I can:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22887&news_iv_ctrl=1021

12. urbangreen | 03.28.09

Based on the continuing empirical evidence(not models),anyone who thinks that there still is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, should really have themselves checked into an institution.

1 Historical data indicates that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise by about 800 yrs. virtually all the scientists agree on this. Essentially as the temperature rises, the seas warm and more CO2 is released in the atmosphere. The whole hypothesis attributing anthropogenic cause as the primary driver for warming is already on a shaky foundation.

2 Most scientists also agree that CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas that comprises about 0.039% of the atmospheric gas

3 Scientists also agree that a doubling of the CO2 concentrations, gives diminishing returns relative to temperature rise. It is essentially logarithmic in nature. If the concentration of the CO2 would reach its spectra saturation point (about 0.50%) the rise in temperature would be about 1.2 C. Beyond that CO2 cannot contribute additionally to the greenhouse effect.

4 The only way that they can postulate and theorize that the rise in temperature can exceed the 1.2C (that saturation point in the Absorption spectra) is by adding multipliers known as positive feedbacks. Virtually all of the empirical data does not support a positive feedback model. Most of Nature operates on negative feedback, which counteracts thermal and chemical reactions to equilibrations points. They are banking on the prospect that the atmosphere will behave similarly to nuclear fission to support the positive feedback models. There is no reason to believe that is the case.

So essentially the IPCC scientists needed to fit their theory of CO2 warming, which was not well represented by actual measurement data, to one that one that was palatable to the relative effort spent postulating to a more extreme conclusion

To do this they had to massage, eliminate, bias and take awful liberties with existing historical data (or proxies) and make if fit the “accepted theory”.

5 Because they blindly accepted Mann’s discredited exponential Hockey Stick, (i.e. Hansen, et al), and it seemed at the time to fit their original postulate that CO2 is the primary driver for temp change, they are now stuck with that position, or stand to lose mucho funding, and let’s face it, no scientist wants to look foolish.

They are counting on what they deem to be a no harm no foul approach. So, even if they were proven wrong- no big deal.

6 No One has shown what the right temperature of the earth should be, or that any warming is shown to be detrimental. The positive effects may well overwhelm any negative results of warming; historically speaking, the warmer the climate, the better overall benefit for mankind. I doubt anyone could derive benefits from the next ice age.

13. Cliff | 03.28.09

Another example that demonstrates how liberalism is a mental disease!

14. nutz2u2 | 03.28.09

The candlemakers have gotta be lovin’ it!

15. Jon Carry | 03.28.09

We had a brutal winter here, despite the devastation of Gullible Warming, we had tree branches down everywhere. I have cut them up in a huge pile, ready to burn. Toss a few gallons of gasoline on it and the bonfire will be visible from low Earth orbit.
There will be steaks on the grill, lots of ice cold beer, and some left over fireworks! We will have all the outside lights on so that everyone can see in the dark. Happy Earth Hour!

16. Proportion | 03.28.09

Conserving electricity for one hour a year amounts to approx. 1/100 of a percent (0.01%) of yearly consumption. Most global warming advocates argue that we should lessen our carbon output by, at minimum, 10% (a factor of 1000x).

The purpose of this hour (which I laughed at, at first, too) is not to be conservative in itself. As the author of this article suggests, you can lessen your carbon output (from lighting–not counting production and disposal) by nearly 80% by using a CFL. If carbon reduction was the ultimate end of Earth Hour then it would be far better to choose a different path, obviously, as many of you have suggested (though quite negatively).

No; the purpose was actually to stage the world’s largest organized protest, consisting of one billion people, using their energy consumption as their placards and slogans. It was to send a message to local, state, national, and global leaders that we are ready to change our ways (even if only for an hour).

In that, the real problem lies. We are not willing to make the sacrifices that this world will need in the next century. Instead, we go only 1/1000 of the distance we need to travel, and pass it along to our leaders to fill in the other 999/1000. It is perhaps appropriate that the old saying goes, ‘the journey of a thousand steps begins with a single step.’ But it does not end with 999 steps taken for us by another.

17. mike b | 03.28.09

Ironically, the lights-out campaign also implies much greater energy inefficiency and dramatically higher levels of air pollution. When asked to extinguish electric lights, most people around the world would turn to candlelight instead. Candles are cozy and seem oh-so-natural. Yet, when measured by the light they generate, candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights.

Moreover, candles create massive amounts of highly damaging indoor particulate air pollution, which in the United States is estimated to kill more than a 100,000 people each year. Candles can easily create indoor air pollution that is 10-100 times the level of outdoor air pollution caused by cars, industry, and electricity production. Measured against the relative decrease in air pollution from the reduced fossil fuel energy production, candles increase health-damaging air pollution 1,000-10,000-fold.

Unfortunately, the lights-out campaign exemplifies the state of much of our environmental debate. We are spoon fed stories that fit preconceived frameworks.

18. cjb122 | 03.28.09

BREAKING NEWS: In celebration of Earth Hour……at about 7:25 p.m. Friday (Alaska time). The Alaska Volcano Observatory website states that Mt. Redoubt emitted another poisonious cloud up approximately 51,000 feet.

19. Brian | 03.28.09

Gullible warming? You clown. Maybe do a little research before you post ignorant comments like this. Global warming is not about the earth slowly warming up… less harsh winters… longer summers. It’s about climatic change. Some areas are going to experience terrible winters and others devastating summers where thousands of people die of heat stroke. With a little change in ocean temperature, the North Atlantic current could stop working as a conveyor belt… bringing warm water to the England coast to regulate winters. Ever wonder why England is the same climate as the USA east coast, but is on the same latitude as Canada? It’s because of this current. Mess with it and you are going to have Northern Canadian conditions in England. Stop being a douche bag, please.

20. Rob | 03.28.09

To A, EbilPhish, Alex:
Powerplants most definitely do adjust their production to meet current demand. If the amount of electricity produced does not equal the amount consumed, they are losing money and overloading the transmission system. Plant operators are constantly monitoring demand and adjusting the generator loads to match.
Power plants, be they gas turbines, coal fired boilers, or nuclear plants, are not on-off devices. They all have a large adjustment range so that they can modulate to meet demand.

21. Zeke Hausfather | 03.28.09

For those asking if turning off the lights will actually reduce the amount of power generated by power plants, bear in mind that the time that Earth Hour is occurring is close to the daily peak load in most places. This means that utilities are bringing on various cycling and peaking units like natural gas turbines to supplement base load generation like coal or nuclear. Peaking units can generally be brought online or offline in a matter of minutes, and its extremely unlikely that Earth Hour will have a large enough impact on power consumption to cut into base load.

Oh course, peaking units generally use different fuels than base load units. In the Midwest, gas peaking units are generally relatively clean gas, while base load units are dirty coal. In the West and North East, the situation is reversed, as base load is mainly nuclear and hydro and peaking units are fuel oil or gas. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough information about the relative composition of peak units for different power generation regions to easily model the relative difference in carbon emissions due to peak versus base reduction.

22. Frederick Badjour | 03.28.09

I’m going to have my earth hour a bit later about 11pm then instead of messing about in the dark, I’m just going to go to bed. That way I won’t need candles or electricity. If more people were as smart as me the polar bears would be safe. The Australian’s aren’t stupid are they if its 8.30 pm here it’s 7.30am in Sydney, so the british get stitched up hanging round in the dark and the aussies are getting ready for work in daylight.

23. aJ | 03.28.09

Good god, people. I really don’t understand why everyone is getting so wrapped up in the “practicality” of this. One web site I came across even talked sinisterly about how people want to take us back to the evils of dark, compared with the goodness of light.

All this is is a PROTEST against global warming. It’s to bring VISIBILITY to an important issue that we are confronted with. Like protesters at a street corner, or an individual wearing a special lapel pin, it allows those who believe in it to make their individual mark to show they care about it. You are welcome to agree or disagree - but you can’t dispute is that it is certainly successful in bringing about one change - it’s helping dispel the apathy and it get the issue in the open where people are actually discussing it.

24. realistTheorist | 03.28.09

There’s even a counter-celebration: celebrating man’s achievements an “Edison Hour”.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=68791672688&ref=mf

25. Patrique | 03.28.09

It doesn’t really matter if its helpful or not; The idea is to raise awareness. If you know better, then don’t participate. Of course if you think it’ll help then feel free; It’s just an organized event. Get kids involved.

26. David Cognito | 03.28.09

As expected in the comments: global warming deniers (now the equivalent of flat earthers and creationists) and those people who think this symbolic gesture is supposed to ’solve’ global warming.

I guess some people are beyond reach or help? Hopefully enough people are beginning to understand that these deniers need to be ignored now and we need to working towards solutions - and that’s what Earth Hour is attempting to make happen by promoting awareness and thought.

27. Blizno | 03.28.09

Urbangreen, where are you getting your information? You use the phrase “…virtually all scientists…”. Do you mean “…virtually all “scientists” who post on global warming denial websites”?

1. Virtually all climate scientists agree that CO2 concentration has been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution and global (note the word “global”) temperatures are increasing in a rough correlation.

2. Virtually all climate scientists agree that CO2, while it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere, has a strong effect on global climate.

3. Virtually all climate scientists agree that increasing CO2 concentration significantly increases global temperature. Worse, as oceans become more acidic from absorbing a small fraction of the additional CO2, ocean life suffers. Phytoplankton, which absorbs a major part of the CO2 absorbed by all plants, is already dying off. Worse still, permafrost in parts of the north, such as much of Russia, is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane and CO2 as the plant matter formerly locked in ice rots.
Why do you think there is some sort of “saturation point” for global warming caused by CO2? The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2. The global temperatures on Venus are hot enough to melt lead. The global temperatures on Venus are much, much hotter than can be explained by its orbit being a little closer to the sun than Earth’s. The Hellish conditions are due to the very high CO2 concentration in the Venusian atmosphere.

4. You are using facile arguments assuming an extremely simple function.
Here’s an example of a tipping point where Earth does not seek equilibrium:
During winter in the north, snow covers land and frozen water. White snow reflects sunlight very well and much of it escapes into space. As spring approaches, patches of dark land appear. The dark land absorbs much more energy than snow and gets warm quickly, warming the air. Soon there is more land than snow and temperatures rise quickly.
The increase in solar energy striking the land increases slowly and steadily but the increase in air temperature once land starts to appear from under the ice happens much faster.
“To do this they had to massage, eliminate, bias and take awful liberties with existing historical data (or proxies) and make if fit the “accepted theory”.”
You are describing the behavior of the denial “scientists”.

5. That “discrediting” of the hokey stick model was itself discredited years ago. The hockey stick model is valid.

6. I won’t bother even starting to show how wrong this is.

Jon Carry, do you understand the meaning of the word “global”? Global warming predicts that some places will get much colder while others get hotter, some dryer, others wetter, etc. The entire globe is getting warmer, driving changes in climate. Fluctuations in local climates not only do nothing to deny global warming, they are predicted by global warming. The fact that you can see snow outside your window means exactly nothing.

28. ghugh | 03.28.09

“Unfortunately, this event - as with many public proposals on climate change - is an entirely symbolic gesture that creates the mistaken impression that there are easy, quick fixes to climate change…. Even if a billion people turn off their lights this Saturday, the entire event will be equivalent to switching off China’s emissions for six short seconds…. The campaign doesn’t ask anybody to do anything difficult, such as coping without heating, airconditioning, telephones, the internet, hot food or cold drinks.”
Bjørn Lomborg, Director of the think tank Copenhagen Consensus Centre.

29. Kristin | 03.28.09

Amen Carey (#9) I think you are the only one here who gets it.

The effects of carbon dioxide emissions and burning fossil fuels, etc on the environment, temperature and global warming in general is theory, not fact. Current evidence can be conflicting and tends to support a multitude of opinions.

But these are the facts:
1. The supply of oil and coal is limited. Only so much exists on earth. At some point, it will run out.
2. We earthlings use a lot of energy to light, heat, cool our homes, drive our cars, etc. This usage is spreading as more countries develop and technology gets cheaper and more accessible.
3. There is some chance that our energy usage and trash generation is damaging the earth and maybe worse or faster than we can even imagine.
4. Changing our habits to conserve energy and recycle and encouraging others to do so is not foolish or naive.

30. DMan | 03.28.09

The world is crazy. I will counter by turning on every light in my house, running my dishwasher, and turning on my 2 flat screen TV’s. Bye-bye Earth!

31. Kerry | 03.28.09

Activities like Earth Hour are extremely counter productive. It lets lazy people delude themselves they’re doing something to save the planet allowing them to justify other wasteful actions. Driving a two ton SUV 50 miles every day is ok, just so long as you turn your lights off for an hour once a year.

32. steven | 03.28.09

The candle carbon footprint question is a valid point.
From my point of view, I personally was raised to believe the Clergy, the police, the military, and the politicians are all honest and working in, and for, the universally defined common good.
In adulthood experience I personally have not always experienced this.
I now believe business is more honest in general.
Maybe “business” does not often do the right thing/s, but business is more honest in my opinion.
Dishonest businesses, if not owned by the government, do not last for long unless they get “protection” from the government, in the form of the government not enforcing, for one simple example, SEC regulations.
Personally, after having been involved in partisan politics and having seen the emptiness of the words and the patronizing attitudes, I will humbly lift my single lit candle and repeat after the Reverend Jesse Jackson, I AM SOMEBODY. My conservation efforts do count, especially when combined with others. I also believe the act of mindfully lighting and holding a candle, in the fossil fuel powered darkness, has some spiritual overtones and symbolisms.
I have come to the personal conclusion that the only way to stop the “beast” is to starve it of money/fuel.
I think therefore I conserve, and try to conserve.
Raise bees and bee hives not oil derricks and nuclear chilling towers.
I also do not vote for any ballot item that allows government to get any more money in ANY way. I also have stopped giving money to ILLEGAL alien enabling religion. I support legal aliens and legal immigration. I believe criminal illegal immigration creates a criminal underground infrastructure that fosters oppression and suppression of non-criminal illegal aliens, legal aliens, and non-criminal citizens.

33. Jon Carry | 03.28.09

My friends are starting to show up. So I gotta post this fast. Gullible Warming is a scam designed to get foolish people to agree to tax increases, wealth redistribution, Socialist fantasies and rigid Political Correctness. So have fun in the dark, moonbats; I am going to celebrate the creativity and achievements of free enterprise capitalism. One beer at a time, by the roar of a carbon emitting bonfire, with my friends and family, grill glowing, steaks sizzling!

34. Anthony | 03.28.09

Everyone forgets that it is God who is in control. He created this planet; He sustains it; and He will end it when He wants to. As such we are to take good care of this home we have been given, but man made global warming is a man made hoax by power hungry men who want to control the masses through fear. And it seems to be working…

35. urbangreen | 03.28.09

Blizo,

My information is valid and from real scientists, not technocratic mouthpieces who have billions of dollars of government funding vested only if they would place their heads in the sand.

With the recent statements that James Hansen made to Congress, I am convinced that you cannot rationalize with the environmental radicals because every issue is hysteria, in which no contrarian debates are allowed; obviously, the science is “settled”. When this type of approach is taken, no rationale solutions can be derived. The left is not interested in the environment, only in stifling debate. The conclusions of the IPCC are far, far from being settled, but every spineless salivating politician is now seeing dollar signs from all the potential taxes they feel they are now morally obligated to collect, in the name of the environment. There is a distinction between environmental issues and Global warming. But you would be hard-pressed to identify that nuance among the press, or the many governments and institutions all jumping on the GW bandwagon. It would be naive to believe that altruism is the only motivating factor for theses parties, i.e. international governments whose only interest is in Uncle Sam dispensing out checks, every time an American turns on the lights, or the willingness of many scientists to compromise their scientific integrity, by issuing hyperbolic statements about the peril of the planet that they know to be BS and borderline absurd.

We want to seek cleaner alternate energy sources- I’m all for that! But this religious fervency, with which the left has framed this issue, is morally repugnant, and bordering on McCarthyism. It is unfortunate that this brand of fear fanaticism has spread to the masses of people, whose unfortunate circumstances in life are now given a new focal point for their disenfranchisement. It is especially vile when the message is intended to magnify the fears of children, who are the most vulnerable to this propaganda. Because the majority of people cannot or are not inclined to delve in the specifics of the science, we are left to the mercies of mercenary scientists, who are paid handsome sums of grant money to perpetrate the climatological status quo”. Many are not even aware, that the IPCC report has downgraded their original assertions from the catastrophic scenarios originally espoused, to the more moderate predictions, which really should cause one to wonder- OK- what is the fuss all about? More and more, there is published data from other sources, other than IPCC, which show evidence that the causes of the warming have been incorrectly assigned toward humans. Again, do not count on the many members of the fourth estate to highlight these contradictions, since they are both lazy and complicit in the misdirection.

The way the argument is framed, rather obnoxiously I would say, is “How can you not accept that the earth is warming?” Well, the argument should be positioned to ask “How can you not accept that earth is ever dynamic?” It is apparent to most scientists by now, that the claims from that ridiculous Gore movie, are way over the top, and most, sheepishly shy away from the outlandish claims made by Mr. Gore. He will perhaps find a better audience among the mis-informed pop culture icons and their worshipers. The unfortunate part of all of this, is that legitimate environmental concerns will not be properly addressed, while solutions to non-existent problems are approached with the typical politically correct demagoguery of the few, with no consideration of the consequences, intended or otherwise, to the lives of the billions of inhabitants of this planet. America is complicit in this hyperbole, by acquiescing to the diatribes of the more radicalized factions of greenies, bent on stifling scientific debate, and feeding the hysteria with messianic overtones. Our politicians are totally gutless, and adverse to any position, regardless of principles, that will make them appear as though they are questioning the tenants of AGW. The greenies and the radical left have succeeded in shaping the argument to make it seem that debating AGW is akin to questioning the purity of mom, apple pie, or the loyalty of a fine dog. Long Live Political correctness.

36. Oscar Coniel | 03.28.09

I didn’t have my lights on simply because I was sitting at my computer the whole evening and didn’t need them…
But if the situation had been different I would still have turned them off…. I spent my whole evening reading and watching stuff about climate change and man induced global warming…. This resulted in me becoming a skeptic for a few hours thinking it was all a big fraud (I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle and a bunch of other videos giving evidence against man induced global warming) but then found evidence disproving the evidence given by the skeptic videos and articles… So now I’m not too sure what to think, but having viewed both sides extensively I’m pretty sure that the whole global warming issue is not a scam or anything of the sort.

For any skeptics I would recommend visiting a site called skeptical science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) and for everyone I would recommend watching The Great Global Warming Swindle and Professor Bob Carter’s lectures on the matter (just look him up on YouTube) but visit skeptical science as well if you do as they argue against the evidence given in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

37. Road House | 03.28.09

The school I’m working at is holding Earth Hour as a school wide event. Sitting here by beeswax candlelight may not be the most active way to “save the planet” but if nothing else it’s a great awareness campaign and a first step, one of many, many, many small steps that are needed to become a more responsible humanity.

-Turned off and lit up in the Adirondacks

38. Jiminy Cricket | 03.28.09

It’s interesting how everything gets boiled down these days (at least on the Internet) to “liberal” vs “conservative”. I hear it mostly from people who call themselves “conservatives” which for them means a claim on the truth, no matter where or who it comes from. Or even easier, the truth is always opposite from whatever viewpoint a person with what they decide are “liberal” views are.

So in this case of global warming we have the presumably pragmatic capitalist “conservatives” versus the foolish socialist “liberals”. What a choice! What a silly choice.

It all brings to mind Thomas Huxley’s quote about slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. The problem in this case is that the ugly fact of science is getting slayed itself. We’ve seen it happen before (e.g. in Stalinit Russia) the warping of science to suit political purposes. Now, those that disbelieve the results of geoscience wish to warp it for their own purposes. But because they believe in “the free market” their purpose is ipso facto more pure.

The fact of the matter is that there are no easy answers to global warming. In that respect, turning out the lights is not an answer. But taking cheap shots at symbolic activity isn’t really much of a response.

39. Blizno | 03.28.09

“34. Anthony:
Everyone forgets that it is God who is in control. He created this planet; He sustains it; and He will end it when He wants to. As such we are to take good care of this home we have been given, but man made global warming is a man made hoax by power hungry men who want to control the masses through fear. And it seems to be working…”

-Daddy gives us food and warmth and Daddy can kill us all if he wants.-
Wow. That is a severely mentally ill philosophy.
Anthony, there are no sky-Daddies watching you and judging you. No sky-Daddy will ever swoop down to save you after you’ve soiled your nest too badly for you to survive. If your gods existed, they would long ago have wrested Earth out of your hands for doing such a miserable job of maintaining it.
We humans are the ones in control. We are the ones with the power to keep our tiny, precious, only Earth healthy enough to support us. Tragically, we also have the power to rape our only world so badly that it bleeds to death, and we will suffer horribly because of our arrogance.

Do not doubt the power of humanity. We are shaping planet Earth. It is our choice whether we shape Earth gently so that it can continue to support us or rip resources out of it until it can’t continue to support us and we find our world dying, followed soon by ourselves.

40. beachin it | 03.28.09

I don’t worship the earth and I don’t listen to Al the Goron. I prefer to listen to scientists and use common sense. For the hour the earth worshippers chose to sit in the dark and feel good about themselves, I had every light in my place on.

41. ArcSine | 03.29.09

Do we shape the earth, or does the earth shape us? Humans are quite adaptive, as we are constantly under the influence of countless forces, we strive for the better (or less painful) path. To think that humans have supremacy over nature is quite narrow minded, especially when looking from a logical point of view. There is no “right” that gives humans authority over the understanding and implications of the mechanisms of nature. We can only infer from what we observe, which will forever impede us from understanding the universe as it is.

So back to the general topic- some of you feel that global warming is happening and know why, and what to do about it. It is clear what your adaptive sense (instinct)is saying. But what about those who deny it is happening, or deny its supporting theories? Are they ignorant, malignant to the environment, or are they seeking a better explanation? How is their adaptive sense working there? This goes back to my arguement about how some things are more apparent to us, while others require more deeper approach to thinking.

Now some of you may tell me, “what about the consequences of pollution vs. no pollution?” This obviously doesn’t counter my arguement, it simply is an example of how some things are more easily inferred than others. Remember, our instinct is invaluable to us, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t malleable.

So back to global warming and earth hour… I will not say what I believe on global warming, but I will tell you that I don’t believe it’s as cut and dry as people on both sides of the arguement believe.

What I can say is that earth hour will be a good way to have 1 hour without light pollution. I think it’s unsightly and it destroys the magnificient view of the night sky. I believe that if we can get office buildings to turn off their lights when not in use, it’ll be a huge step towards cutting down light pollution.

42. Nacho | 03.29.09

“…emissions from these candles…”
So now we have a new global BF problem with the horrible irresponsible anti-ecological candle burning!? PLEASE, this is getting too crazy and totally pointless…

43. Matt | 03.29.09

I’m a Christian. I’m also interested in reversing global warming. Anthony, you say,

“Everyone forgets that it is God who is in control. He created this planet; He sustains it; and He will end it when He wants to. As such we are to take good care of this home we have been given, but man made global warming is a man made hoax by power hungry men who want to control the masses through fear. And it seems to be working…”

Don’t forget that you’re renting the Earth from God, and you have the freedom to do with it what you like. But he holds you responsible for the condition you return it in.

It takes less faith to believe that global warming is caused by humans than it does to believe in God. At least scientists can give you a hand with global warming.

44. Jimmy Cricket | 03.29.09

Our first fallacy of course is thinking we can have any reasonable discussion on a feedback thing like this. But I must response to ArcSine who at least is showing some reason.

First of all, getting philosophical about all this is surely counter-productive. If you are in a car with some maniac and they are going full speed ahead straight off a cliff, are you going to sit there and discuss man’s place in the universe? Actually, you might want to show the driver that the scientifically produced map clearly shows the direction you’re going in is straight off the cliff and then to discuss whether going in that direction was the best option to get into town.

But aside from that it isn’t necessary to answer a question of whether we have supremacy over nature or not to see that human actions have had detrimental effects on nature. Ask your nearest chimpanzee or clear-cut forest.

The argument of whether global warming is happening or not, at least on the level of Internet debate is largely senseless, and the reason is simple. If you got anyone, pro or con, to say that they’ve sat down and read all the studies and papers, from start to finish, they would assuredly say no. In that sense your question as to whether those that deny the theories are ignorant, I’d have to answer in general probably yes. There is alot of self-interest and emotion involved in this more than factually based discussion.

In our complex society, like it or not, it does have to boil down to accepting/hoping that our leaders are intelligent enough people to read the papers or have knowledgeable consultation on it, and weigh the options as best they can. And it is interesting to see that the leaders now of most industrialized countries, including Russia, firmly believe something must be done.

45. thestupidwhiteguy | 03.29.09

Liberal eco-hypocrisy?! No, you don’t say!

For more “illumination” on the topic, we submit for your perusal:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1a4af347eb/eco-commando-episode-1

46. Jiminy Cricket | 03.29.09

Our first fallacy of course is thinking we can have any reasonable discussion on a feedback thing like this. But I must response to ArcSine who at least is showing some reason.

First of all, getting philosophical about all this is surely counter-productive. If you are in a car with some maniac and they are going full speed ahead straight off a cliff, are you going to sit there and discuss man’s place in the universe? Actually, you might want to show the driver that the scientifically produced map clearly shows the direction you’re going in is straight off the cliff and then to discuss whether going in that direction was the best option to get into town.

But aside from that it isn’t necessary to answer a question of whether we have supremacy over nature or not to see that human actions have had detrimental effects on nature. Ask your nearest chimpanzee or clear-cut forest.

The argument of whether global warming is happening or not, at least on the level of Internet debate is largely senseless, and the reason is simple. If you got anyone, pro or con, to say that they’ve sat down and read all the studies and papers, from start to finish, they would assuredly say no. In that sense your question as to whether those that deny the theories are ignorant, I’d have to answer in general probably yes. There is alot of self-interest and emotion involved in this more than factually based discussion.

In our complex society, like it or not, it does have to boil down to accepting/hoping that our leaders are intelligent enough people to read the papers or have knowledgeable consultation on it, and weigh the options as best they can. And it is interesting to see that the leaders now of most industrialized countries, including Russia, firmly believe something must be done.

47. Steph | 03.29.09

For those of you who decided to light up your homes in protest of this very, very, very mild global event, congratulations. As you proud yourself in being ever-so-rebellious against the status quo (a status quo which unfortunately seems not to exist in the mainstream), you are plugging yourself into another large-scale power structure–your electrical grid and all the power relations that come with it. Global climate change–whether you ‘believe’ in it or not–is only one of many reasons not to use too much power. Burning fossil fuels causes acid rain, which damages plants (wild and agricultural), hurts animals, corrodes buildings, and so on. Fossil fuels create toxic pollution and make air hard to breathe. Smog makes some beautiful sunsets but darkens our skies. Pollution robs us of a clear night sky and the stars. And the absence of darkness–especially in our cities–robs us of our need for peace and tranquility.

Earth Hour is not a practical or scientific project. It is a global citizens’ movement calling for our leaders to take action to protect the environment. Human enterprise–inspiring ‘Edison Hour’–is a wondrous thing. But regardless of how far we ‘progress’ as a species, we will always rely on natural materials, other species, and climate to survive in this world. Why not encourage each other to use their ingenuity to honor the planet we were born to? This is not a partisan political cause. It’s about survival and about demanding a higher quality of life for all people.

48. Mike McFadden | 03.30.09

Well I’ve been convinced to change my attitude from conservation and responsible use of resources because of the excellent arguments presented by many in these discussions. The predominate arguement from the anti-enviromentalists is to call me and others of my ilk “idiots” and “morons” and “hypocrites” and “lazy” and “fools”. Yes, I’ve been convinced after reading these statements of logic designed to show me the error of my ways.

49. Ganesh - Online Bull | 03.30.09

This can be troublesome. If it were me, I’d rather sit outside my home in the dark and breathe in the cool night air. Say no to both candles and lights. :)

50. Jane | 03.31.09

When it began, I thought Earth Hour was rather pointless, but as it spread throughout the world I bought in. The point is awareness, and that each of us can do something. All the little somethings can add up as awareness increases, then governments buy in and it spreads. That is now happening.
One point: soy wax candles are not the best (better than paraffin, but not great). Soy is not a wax, but hydrogenated soybean oil. The oil is heated to a high temperature (140-225C), then introduced to hydrogen and nickel (a suspected carcinogen) as a catalyst to solidify the oil. Synthetic colours and scents are added that, when burned, produce toxic fumes. Beeswax is the only natural wax, is non-allergenic and cleans the air. It is a renewable and sustainable resource (assuming that colony collapse can be stopped).

51. Bernie Misiura | 03.31.09

Yes, Yes it does.

http://bikerbernie.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/earth-hour-turn-on-all-your-lights/#comment-734

b

52. Mike McFadden | 03.31.09

As someone of Irish descent I am offended by Thomas Goss’ comments and I’m surprised that the Monitor would allow such a posting. I believe the Monitor’s motto is to “Injure no man”. Just because the Irish are not black or hispanic does not mean it is allowable to be subjected to negative stereotypes and racially insensitive comments. Thomas Goss, in the future please limit your comments to the content of the articles and not resort to blatant racism. And the Monitor editors should be ashamed.

53. editorial | 03.31.09

Mike, you’re right. It was a goof on the part of the editor — me — who approved that comment. We like everyone to have a say, but personal attacks are unacceptable and I’m taking that comment down. If Mr. Goss wants to disagree with the blogger or the subject of the blog, fine. But it’s not OK to make ridiculous remarks about the blogger’s enthnic background.

54. Stephen | 04.01.09

Perhaps next year we should try earth day. For a whole day, everything you do should be carbon-neutral. You can achieve carbon neutrality however you like, but the key is that you should aim to have as normal a day as possible. That way it would raise awareness of the challenges we need to overcome to have a carbon neutral society. I imagine most people would just by carbon offset credits, but that in itself would be great. Hopefully, people would get more creative, and some budding entrepeneurs may have an idea which we can use the whole year!

55. CH | 04.17.09

I came across this article today, and I think it’s a great writeup. After reading some of the comments, I see some people are just tired of being told what to do. No one told you you had to participate in earth hour, or even becoming green. It’s always a suggestion, with a purpose. For instance, it’s suggested to you that you shouldn’t smoke, or drink and drive, or overeat. We all know the outcomes. Turning off the light for an hour is a great thing to do because worldwide, it will save energy. Yes powerplants are probably still running but they will have less energy to produce. Burning candles is both good, and bad. good because you have another source of light that is electric free. Bad because the carbon levels in them are rediculous, but not everyone knows that. It also depends on what you burn. I own a soy candle company, and I don’t burn anything else except soy. I think people should be burning cleaner candles year round. Not just for the environment, but for your own health, as well as your families. Don’t burn it because someone told you to, buy a clean candle, and a paraffin candle, burn both seperatly, and see the difference for yourself. You will see less soot and carbon buildup, breath easier, and save money since they burn longer. If you turn out those lights when no one is using them, you will save money on your electric bill, and the house will be cooler especially in the summer months. It’s common sense. People give you suggestions, it’s up to you to try it out for yourself, and see how it make a difference in your life.

56. Em | 04.19.09

I think this is defeating the main purpose of Earth hour on the website their goal is to help raise awarness of climate change not to actually lower the emissions if this was the case they would be doing something more effective.

57. Person | 05.05.09

We people are like electrons, they seek the path of least resistance. Also we are affected by inertia. We are admittedly resistant to change if we can help it. Our behaviour, our creature comforts, our habits, even though we may guiltily understand the consequences.

Then again, everyone once thought the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. Galileo had a hard time. And today, you know the truth.

Change takes time. But over generations, it will happen. Problem is, this time we don’t have that luxury. So I hope everyone understands now that there’s nothing wrong in not trying to overcome nature, because no one can.

58. harry | 09.01.09

Not only following earth hours. One has to stop using electricity unnecessarily. Switching off the lights when not in use, not keeping the computer in stand by mode for long time is more enough to do something for reducing global warming. Thanks for posting.

59. amber | 10.22.09

How does our idea of man’s place in the universe impact our care of Earth’s environment?

1. Does lighting candles for Earth Hour defeat the purpose? | 如何在网络上赚更多的钱 | 03.27.09

2. Does lighting candles for Earth Hour defeat the purpose …-Offshore Hosting Server | 03.28.09

3. Not worth the candle? « Hundreds and Thousands | 03.28.09

4. Burning candles during EARTH HOUR will emit more carbon than lighting a fluorescent lamp.. How ironical~ | Onlinekakis | 03.28.09

5. Do candles use more greenhouse gases than lightbulbs? - Parenting in Vancouver | 03.28.09

6. Turn out the lights? Not everyone’s on board Earth Hour | csmonitor.com | 03.28.09

7. Turn out the lights? Not everyone’s on board Earth Hour | 03.28.09

8. Turn Out the Lights? Not Everyone | 03.28.09

9. Thoughts on Earth Hour and the population of the world « Bob Monahon’s Blog | 03.28.09

10. Ed Driscoll » The New Endarkenment | 03.28.09

11. Wednesday-Night - » Earth Hour 2009 | 03.28.09

12. Topics about Candles » Does lighting candles for Earth Hour defeat the purpose … | 03.29.09

13. What If The Earth Doesn’t Want Your Hour? « You Have To Be Kidding | 03.29.09

14. GreenTech Pastures mobile edition | 03.31.09