It must be difficult being Al Gore. Not just because of any desperation caused by the realization that his private jet cannot run on hypocrisy alone–imagine the savings!–but also the reality that, with seemingly every passing poll, the very movement he championed is sinking lower and lower on people’s priority list, sinking almost as fast as sea levels were supposed to rise in his flimsy numbers.
The Global Warming movement was renamed “climate change” in the same fashion and for the same reasons as “terrorism” is now to be known as “man-caused disaster,” the “Global War on Terror” is now the “Overseas Contingency Operation” and “Gitmo detainee” will inevitably become “howdy, neighbor.” It exists only in a world devoid of fact, a manifestation of those on the political left who sought a new way to present, to the public, the redistribution of wealth.
And, while things are very soon going to be serious because of the pending and potentially disastrous Copenhagen Accord, for now a few moments of laughter at the expense of the purveyors of this farcical facade for global socialism is in order.
Tomorrow night, between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m., the world is supposed to embrace “Earth Hour” a gesture initially billed as being a way to conserve energy but later touted as merely symbolic after the reality of a lack of quantifiable conservation set in. Included in the worldwide effort to turn off lights as a symbol of our commitment to Mother Earth is France’s Eiffel Tower, China’s Bird’s Nest Stadium, Egypt’s Great Pyramids . . . and the United Nations headquarters in New York City.
Indeed, the U.N. intends to darken the headquarters in observance of Earth Hour tomorrow night, and parts of a story about Earth Hour skeptics on Fox News Channel’s Web site made me laugh out loud. So, I thought I would share.
Based on average energy consumption levels from 2006-08, U.N. spokeswoman Vannina Maestracci said the world body’s New York headquarters will save $102 while observing Earth Hour. Maestracci initially estimated the savings would be $81,000 before revising it to $24,300. She ultimately estimated the savings would be just $102 for the darkened hour.
I love it. Such a radical overstatement of numbers is the Global Warming movement in a nutshell. For example, polar bears were said to be drowning because of the melting of the ice caps–and indeed pressure from the environmental lobby caused the animals to be put on the endangered species list–when, in reality, polar bears are flourishing, with population numbers that have exponentially increased since the 1980s. The sea levels, according to Gore, are supposed to rise by dozens of feet, yet even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argued that his assessments were overblown. Even the argument that global temperatures were on the rise, a hallmark of the movement, had to be retooled because the Earth is actually cooling, a back-to-the-drawing-board moment which brought us the overnight terminological change from “global warming” to the more nebulous “climate change.”
Whatever the savings, [journalist Claudia] Rosett accused U.N. officials of distorting facts to make its participation in the event appear more impactful.
“That’s a marvelous figure,” Rosett said of the initial estimate. “If turning off the lights of the United Nations will save $81,000 an hour, it would be a great idea to keep them off every day of the year.”
I second the motion. I’d love to see the U.N. building in New York City darkened for good. They can feel free to turn the lights back on when they relocate to France or Switzerland or, gosh, just someplace else.
Asked to estimate how much energy could be saved worldwide during the 60 minutes of darkness, [WWF spokesperson Leslie] Aun replied, “We don’t even calculate the emissions that we save in that hour. That’s not the point.”
But Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and director of the Denmark-based think tank Copenhagen Consensus Centre, said the event could actually increase emissions.
“When asked to extinguish electricity, people turn to candlelight,” Lomborg wrote in an op-ed in The Australian. “Candles seem natural, but are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light globes, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. If you use one candle for each extinguished globe, you’re essentially not cutting CO2 at all, and with two candles you’ll emit more CO2. Moreover, candles produce indoor air pollution 10 to 100 times the level of pollution caused by all cars, industry and electricity production.”
That’s the inherent problem with the ideas advanced by Gore and his global warming movement, and indeed the tenets liberal thought in general — the Law of Unintended Consequences always seems to cause trouble.
In the case of global warming, just two brief examples include how the movement toward bio-fuels has actually caused rampant destruction of carbon-soaking rainforest in Brazil to make way for sugarcane crop, and how the environmentally-conscious compact fluorescent lightbulbs contain toxic amounts of mercury, released into the ground at landfills.
So, make light of the inherent stupidity and hypocrisy of the global warming movement while we can because, in the coming weeks and months, we must steel ourselves for an intense fight over not only the substantive, scientific claims behind the ongoing debate, but also a detailed look into the disastrous consequences of what these people want to do in the name of a theory rooted more in class warfare than environmental concern.