Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!

[Cannuck]

Yeah I see your point and I'm not really going to go and defend the WWF, but all I can say is that funding is funding no matter where it comes from.

The Board of Directors of Monsanto (or any other corporations) are legally obligated to place the financial interests of the shareholders as their number one priority. How do the shareholders of Monsanto or Exxon benefit from donating to WWF? That's the question that needs to be asked. Unfortunately, I can't ask it because I think I've hijacked this thread enough.

 

[pgs]

I see the drop in power consumption for British Columbia was about 1.1%
A nice drop in the bucket compared to last years 2.5%.
It seems far less of us left coasters participated in this farce this year then last.
No wonder the restaurant was so crowded.

 

[L Gilbert]

I assume you called me a nitwit because you are still pouting, boy.

Sorry, you are wrong again.
I called you a nitwit because you are being obtuse, belligerent, and are using a logical fallacy to try getting on my nerves and hijack the thread.

Confusing association with causation
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990's both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.

- Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

Grow up and try not to hijkack threads anymore.

 

[L Gilbert]

I see the drop in power consumption for British Columbia was about 1.1%
A nice drop in the bucket compared to last years 2.5%.
It seems far less of us left coasters participated in this farce this year then last.
No wonder the restaurant was so crowded.

Another logical fallacy. More people may have turned off their lights this year than last. More people may have decided to do laundry or watch tv while their lights were off resulting in more consumption.

 

[Cannuck]

Sorry, you are wrong again.
I called you a nitwit because you are being obtuse, belligerent.

Um...do you have any idea how funny that is? You come to a thread, call somebody a nitwit, and then accuse them of being belligerent.

and are using a fallacious argument to try getting on my nerves.

I'm not trying to get get on your nerves but it quite obvious that I have. Grow up, nit wit, child....as I said, some people just don't like to be challenged. Now, would you kindly grow up and try not to hijack this thread. It's about earth hour and not my "obtuseness".

 

[Tonington]

Another logical fallacy. More people may have turned off their lights this year than last. More people may have decided to do laundry or watch tv while their lights were off resulting in more consumption.

Or Earth hour this year was colder than the reference period that BC Hydro used to calculate change in demand, and thus more electric heaters were being used.

It could be any number of things, and it's not immediately obvious that it was fewer participants. We know that more communities registered for this years Earth hour than last years.

 

[L Gilbert]

Or Earth hour this year was colder than the reference period that BC Hydro used to calculate change in demand, and thus more electric heaters were being used.

It could be any number of things, and it's not immediately obvious that it was fewer participants. We know that more communities registered for this years Earth hour than last years.

My point exactly. The futility is one of the reasons why we carried on with our usual habits.

 

[petros]

Thus, Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory have been verified time and again by evidence, most scientists, astronomers believe them to be true. However, if tomorrow somebody makes even a single observation that cannot be explained by either of these theories, they are disproved.

Hubble's red shift, blue shift has some problems to it indeed. Take Galaxy M82 and NGC 7603, there are quasars that show a red shift indicating a position in the furthest reaches but in reality are not that far away. If Hubble's red shift were infallible these anomalies wouldn't exist.

Astronomers have a lot more in common with the bible thumpers than you'd think both will not waver on their beliefs. Margaret Burbidge has been fighting the establishment for years and is finally now being heard but it is going to cost red shift and an expanding universe their "fact" status.


Thirty Years Later

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947)


"The evidence that many objects previously believed to be at great distances are actually much closer confronts us with the most drastic possible revision of current concepts." Halton Arp.


One of the more famous of those "many objects" is the galaxy imaged above, NGC 7603. Its fame is due to Fred Hoyle selecting it to illustrate his 1973 Russell Lecture before the American Astronomical Society. He referred to its connection with a higher-redshift companion as prototypical of observations that required an advance in physics beyond currently accepted theories. For the first time in the history of the prestigious Russell Lectures, the Astrophysical Journal didn't publish the address.


The advance in physics that Hoyle anticipated was an explanation for the ubiquitous shift toward longer wavelengths of the lines in galaxies' spectra. For over 70 years astronomers have insisted that such redshift was an indicator of distance. NGC 7603, with a redshift of .029, was 400 million light years away, and the companion, with a redshift of .057, was 780 million light years away—almost twice as far. The filament connecting the two had to be only apparent, a chance alignment of a foreground galaxy with a distant one.


But that facile dismissal of evidence strained one's confidence in coincidence. NGC 7603 was a Seyfert galaxy, a class of galaxies characterized by their activity, especially the activity of ejecting material such as this companion. And the interior of NGC 7603 was torn up: There was no other galaxy nearby, except the companion, to exert that kind of influence. And the unusual single arm ended on the companion—exactly what one would expect of an ejected, or even of a passing, galaxy. Straining coincidence even further was the observation that the companion had a deformed shape and a bright rim around it. The rim brightened exactly at the point of connection with the filament from NGC 7603.


If it were admitted that these two galaxies were physically connected, it would have to be conceded that at least some of the redshift in spectra was intrinsic, due to an unknown mechanism, and not an indication of distance. The theoretical edifice of the expanding universe and the Big Bang would be undermined if not demolished. The carefully built up map of the universe would have to be scrapped.
If astronomy were a science, astronomers would have made the investigation of anomalous redshifts and the discovery of an intrinsic redshift mechanism their top priority. Instead, they reacted by not publishing Hoyle's lecture and by denying telescope time to follow-up studies of NGC 7603. Arp noted, "It is a rare occasion when a person, even a scientist, is able to really look at a picture without forcing it into a frame of prior reference."


For 30 years institutional astronomy has buried its head in the sands of denial. But in 2002, two astronomers at La Palma took spectra of the galaxies and the connecting filament. They not only confirmed the discrepancy in redshifts of the galaxies but also discovered that the two quasar-like objects embedded in the filament (objects 2 and 3) have even greater discrepancies in redshift. If redshift indicated distance, the small objects would be 7 and 11 times farther away than NGC 7603. To dismiss this alignment as coincidence is to breathe sand.
On the 30th anniversary of Hoyle's lecture, Arp wrote: "I now personally regret that a generation has passed and we are further than ever from making that advance."

 

[barney]

This event was a part of the biggest threat to the welfare of mankind.

It sounds like you're basing your reasoning mainly on the biofuels issue.

I'm not disagreeing that this is not a big problem (i.e. it essentially gives agri-business and governments a great excuse to clear-cut areas that previously would have been off-limits, using the the "green" argument as thier justification).

These days, you probably won't get much debate there among environmentalists. It's been proven to be flawed logic that does more harm than good.

You consider that a petty concern? Give me an example of something with more potential for harm if you can think of one.

They may be agains the practice but as long as they keep pushing the AGW agenda, that's the kind of result they'll garner.

See I think the problem here is that you are associating these organizations (and Earth Hour) with the push to biofuels. In other words, you are assuming the to support Earth Hour is contradictory.

Thing is, the evidence points to the contrary: although initially, biofuels were considered to be the next big green idea, today its failings have been identified and has lost much of its support among environmentalists.

(It's an issue that is still under debate though, so one can't be conclusive.)

Well now you've surprised me! Waste and environmental degredation can be justified by being good for business? Or am I reading you wrong.

I was really just saying that it could possibly be justified from some ecomnomical standpoint. My point was that it wasn't wasteful for the sake of wastefulness.

But now that I think I understand what your viewpoint is, all I can say is that you should probably make sure that the connection you are making between enviro orgs and agri-business actually exists first.

Thus far there is no real evidence this connection exists. (Keep in mind that environmentalist folks sometimes jump on the bandwagon too quickly only to realize later that the thing isn't as rosy as it seemed.)

The Board of Directors of Monsanto (or any other corporations) are legally obligated to place the financial interests of the shareholders as their number one priority. How do the shareholders of Monsanto or Exxon benefit from donating to WWF? That's the question that needs to be asked. Unfortunately, I can't ask it because I think I've hijacked this thread enough.

Ask away. The answer is as I said, PR. PR affects sales. PR is big on Monsanto's list (logical considering the rep they have).

 

[Cannuck]

Ask away. The answer is as I said, PR. PR affects sales. PR is big on Monsanto's list (logical considering the rep they have).

You're joking right? How many environmentalists have got the warm and fuzzies for Monsanto or Exxon. If they want good PR, giving money to community groups such as volunteer fire departments, hockey rinks or food banks would get a bigger bang for the buck. No, it's about more than PR. Monsanto and WWF have a good working relationship. That comes in handy at times.

 

[Tonington]

You're joking right? How many environmentalists have got the warm and fuzzies for Monsanto or Exxon. If they want good PR, giving money to community groups such as volunteer fire departments, hockey rinks or food banks would get a bigger bang for the buck. No, it's about more than PR. Monsanto and WWF have a good working relationship. That comes in handy at times.

I doubt he's joking. It's called greenwashing, and those companies you mention market their products to a segment of society much larger than just enviros. Despite your objections, WWF gives much better exposure than a local fire department. That is the better bang for the buck. Much better than donating to thousands of local organizations. :roll:

 

[barney]

Yep, pretty much what Tonington said.

It's kind of similar to when agri-business companies that are at the forefront of factory farming sell an "organic" label. It may seem to be going against the grain so to speak, but it achieves the desired end result (i.e. fulfils their legal obligations).

 

[Extrafire]

It sounds like you're basing your reasoning mainly on the biofuels issue.

You're kidding, right?

If not maybe you should go back and re-read my previous post. I mentioned bio-fuels because that is one concrete, undeniable consequence of the push to stop "global warming". Billions of the worlds poorest are suffering from the tiny bit of action that's been taken thus far. It will get much worse if the greenies have their way.

See I think the problem here is that you are associating these organizations (and Earth Hour) with the push to biofuels. In other words, you are assuming the to support Earth Hour is contradictory.

Where do you get that idea? I'm saying that to support Earth Hour is a way of demanding action be taken to combat "climate change", and that any such action taken will have a detrimental, possibly devastating) effect on humanity. The mention of the damage caused by bio-fuels was just one example of such a detrimental effect.

But now that I think I understand what your viewpoint is, all I can say is that you should probably make sure that the connection you are making between enviro orgs and agri-business actually exists first.

Thus far there is no real evidence this connection exists. (Keep in mind that environmentalist folks sometimes jump on the bandwagon too quickly only to realize later that the thing isn't as rosy as it seemed.)

I think you should pay more attention to what I'm posting. Nothing I said could possibly lead you to believe that I see such a connection. In fact, that's a rather ludicrous idea and I almost feel insulted that you would think so little of my intelligence. Go back and read my previous post.

[/quote]

 

[Extrafire]

Another logical fallacy. More people may have turned off their lights this year than last. More people may have decided to do laundry or watch tv while their lights were off resulting in more consumption.

Yeah, go with that! :lol: It will make you feel better. People in Aussie and NZ must have been doing laundry in the dark too. :roll:

 

[JLM]

Yep, pretty much what Tonington said.

It's kind of similar to when agri-business companies that are at the forefront of factory farming sell an "organic" label. It may seem to be going against the grain so to speak, but it achieves the desired end result (i.e. fulfils their legal obligations).

On the subject of organic foods there was quite an extensive article in Readers' Digest in the past year or so, pointing out quite a few things. From what I could gather there is nothing detrimental about buying organic foods as long as you don't pay more for them, as the nutritional value is the same and there are a lot of misconceptions about the quality.

 

[barney]

You're kidding, right?

Why do people keep asking me that?! April Fools is over.

(Yes, yes; I know what rhetorical questions are. Just mess'n.)

To be honest I initially thought you were pulling my leg with all this, it being April Fools and all.

If not maybe you should go back and re-read my previous post.

I did. You mentioned something about the DDT ban and increased malaria (???) but aside from that, it's the biofuels thing.

I mentioned bio-fuels because that is one concrete, undeniable consequence of the push to stop "global warming". Billions of the worlds poorest are suffering from the tiny bit of action that's been taken thus far. It will get much worse if the greenies have their way.

Why is it undeniable?

Where do you get that idea? I'm saying that to support Earth Hour is a way of demanding action be taken to combat "climate change", and that any such action taken will have a detrimental, possibly devastating) effect on humanity. The mention of the damage caused by bio-fuels was just one example of such a detrimental effect.

Yes I understood what you meant. Yes I see that biofuels are an example. The "detrimental effect" is, thus far based mainly on that example.

I don't want to ask for more examples because I prefer to just take your word but at least give some logical motives, something.

I think you should pay more attention to what I'm posting. Nothing I said could possibly lead you to believe that I see such a connection. In fact, that's a rather ludicrous idea and I almost feel insulted that you would think so little of my intelligence. Go back and read my previous post.

Don't get all emotional and just be clearer. It sounds like you are saying that the activities of the "greenies" are contributing (that would be a 'connection') to the push towards biofuels.

Understand I'm not suggesting conspiracy, I'm just getting that to support one is to support the other. What I'm not getting is why that is so.

 

[barney]

On the subject of organic foods there was quite an extensive article in Readers' Digest in the past year or so, pointing out quite a few things. From what I could gather there is nothing detrimental about buying organic foods as long as you don't pay more for them, as the nutritional value is the same and there are a lot of misconceptions about the quality.

Sure I guess. The only reason one buys organic is a) to avoid pesticide absorption (not as much of a problem in thicker-skinned produce), b) to avoid anti-biotics in meat, c) to avoid GMOs, and d) to (supposedly) get your dairy/meat from free-run animals (antibiotics are usually needed for penned-up animals because they develop diseases from the conditions) which yield higher-quality products--putting ethics aside.

When agri-business sells "organic" it's not certified organic (i.e. there's nothing provining it's organic--it just has fewer nasties in it). You'd think people would see through it but it works.

...Now back to the thread topic.

 

[Cannuck]

I doubt he's joking. It's called greenwashing, and those companies you mention market their products to a segment of society much larger than just enviros. Despite your objections, WWF gives much better exposure than a local fire department. That is the better bang for the buck. Much better than donating to thousands of local organizations. :roll:

I'm sure you're right. that's probably why Exxon and Monsanto are so popular with the environmental crowd.

 

[Extrafire]

Why do people keep asking me that?! I did. You mentioned something about the DDT ban and increased malaria (???) but aside from that, it's the biofuels thing.

How did you miss this:

cost to the world economy devastating.
Emerging economies supressed.
poorest would be kept in drudgery and hunger for centuries.
millions of needless deaths due to diseases (example, DDT)
developed nations economies would be greatly supressed,
developed nations less able to supply aid

Why is it undeniable?

Because it's already happend, it was widely reported on the news and is part of history.

Yes I understood what you meant. Yes I see that biofuels are an example. The "detrimental effect" is, thus far based mainly on that example.

I don't want to ask for more examples because I prefer to just take your word but at least give some logical motives, something.

Logical motives? Whatever that means.

Here's another example of the cost of a very modest attempt to meet Kyoto obligations by Spain:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
I don't recall the estimated cost for the world to meet its Kyoto obligations but I do remember that it would be enough to provide clean drinking water and housing for the whole world. You may recall that achieving Kyoto's goals would not have any effect on AGW (even if it was true) so imagine the impact of the expenditure that would be required to actually reduce emissions by the 80% that the alarmists want.

Don't get all emotional and just be clearer. It sounds like you are saying that the activities of the "greenies" are contributing (that would be a 'connection') to the push towards biofuels.

Understand I'm not suggesting conspiracy, I'm just getting that to support one is to support the other. What I'm not getting is why that is so.

Supporting one is not necessarily supporting the other. It's called unintended consequences.

 

[barney]

How did you miss this:

cost to the world economy devastating.
Emerging economies supressed.
poorest would be kept in drudgery and hunger for centuries.
millions of needless deaths due to diseases (example, DDT)
developed nations economies would be greatly supressed,
developed nations less able to supply aid

Because it's already happend, it was widely reported on the news and is part of history.

I didn't miss it; those are things that have happened/are happening in the world but aside from biofuels (and DDT--I'm not sure that's relevant because it's carcinogenic, so malaria is the lesser evil), you haven't really made a clear cause and effect connection between the GW movement and all of the above. Sure that's what you're saying but you haven't really backed it up with why that is so.

Logical motives? Whatever that means.

Yeah sorry about that. I just threw that in at the last second without giving it much thought.

What I meant was that if you could provide an argument as to why one should need to conclude that support of GW movement caused the above effects, then you would be saying something. Otherwise, you could just as well say that those things were caused by a pink elephant and it would be just as logical.

I see you have done that (below).

I don't recall the estimated cost for the world to meet its Kyoto obligations but I do remember that it would be enough to provide clean drinking water and housing for the whole world. You may recall that achieving Kyoto's goals would not have any effect on AGW (even if it was true) so imagine the impact of the expenditure that would be required to actually reduce emissions by the 80% that the alarmists want.

Now you're talking. The pro-Kyoto argument is that reduction of emissions would result in lower health costs/deaths. The argument is dependent on the idea that average global temperatures are rising and all that that implies.

Since it Kyoto doesn't really cover for example water sources (aside from indirectly via polluted rainfall), it doesn't seem reasonable to put people's immediate welfare on the line for the sake of reducing just emissions, in most cases.

Take Forestry for as example of an exception: limits on clear-cutting would cause significant job-loss in the Forestry/lumber industry. However, the costs of losing all that air-filtering potential due to clear-cutting outweighs the cost of unemployment.

The idea that "Green jobs" are somehow an effective employment-gap filler seems unlikely though. Some jobs are created, but it hardly counters the job loss at the other end. People who promote that just seem to want to have their cake and eat it to; going "green" requires sacrifice (at least initially until you introduce large-scale economic changes to regain viability).

[BTW I assume by "AGW" you actually meant GW (i.e. Kyoto won't have any impact on non-human-caused CC).]

Supporting one is not necessarily supporting the other. It's called unintended consequences.

I got that.

I would still say that intended threats to human welfare, like companies polluting water sources just to save a buck (i.e. causing ill-health and death supposedly for the sake of cutting costs and keeping a few more people employed) are more logical targets for protest than generally well-meaning threats to jobs (i.e. Earth Hour).

I would wager that most of the human-caused health threats faced by humans today all over the world are preventable without causing economic havoc.

And, to be honest, if it does cause havoc...balls to that economy. Humans need to learn how to live responsibly for *uck's sake.