Things Go Dark For Earth Hour

This is one of the most perfect, and ironic, headlines when it comes to Cult Of Climastrology

Philippines to go dark on March 28 for Earth Hour

Homes and establishments across the country will go dark on Saturday evening, March 28 and it’s not because of any power outage. The lights-out event is called Earth Hour and it will happen from 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm on March 28.

The entire movement is ostensibly pushing for people to return to the time when people spent their nights huddled at home at night, using fireplaces (which will also be banished under the auspices of “climate change”) to keep the dark at bay, a time of superstition about vampires and werewolves, of malevolent spirits roaming the countryside.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “Things Go Dark For Earth Hour”

  1. Phil Taylor says:

    The expression where I livei is “Celebrate Earth Hour.”
    If Climate changeis a new secular religion as some tout, then this would be one of their first rituals.
    Carols and Hymns soon to follow…

  2. Jeffery says:

    movement is ostensibly pushing for people to return to the time when people spent their nights huddled at home

    I don’t think ‘ostensibly’ means what you think it means.

    Ostensibly = apparently, but not actually

    Is that what you meant? That the global warming “movement”, as you call it, is “not actually” pushing for people to return…

    Anyway, the silly meme that slowing global warming by cutting CO2 emissions will result in living in caves, or huddled in dark cabins is just more RWNJ scaremongering. Perhaps your Freudian slip reflects your inner reason trying to fight through.

    Phil – I see you’ve given up discussing science, which is just as well.

    Do you know what religion is? Here is a list of characteristics:

    Belief in Supernatural Beings

    Sacred Objects, Places, Times and Associated Rituals

    Moral Code of Supernatural Origin

    Characteristically Religious Feelings

    Prayer to Supernatural Beings

    Social Group Bound by the Above

    Science is not a religion.

  3. Jl says:

    And climate astrology is not science. A belief in something you can’t see- like religion

  4. Phil Taylor says:

    >Science is not a religion.

    No but Climate Change is!

    What’s more it mimics Judo Christianity.
    Woship of the earth instead of God, must atone for sins, mankind inherently evil, ostracize blasphemers, armageddon predictions that are always in the future. End of times etc…

    As for science I was away for a few days and intend to look at your skeptical science link you sent me.
    I was at a meeting though with a AGW speaker. His bottom line was to lobby politicians about AGW and he used a screenshot in his powerpoint presentation from the skeptical science website that said words to the effect that 97% of all papers written about AGW support AGW. He said though while showing this slide that 97% of scientists believe in AGW. That line is often touted, usually as a misrepresentation of that screenshot headline.

    When asked why he believed in AGW he said it was true and that we should believe too.

    When asked all the question I asked you he could not answer them ether. He only reads one side of the story. Like Christians who only read the Bible and do not know who Mithra is.

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    For those interested here are some some of the similarities between Mithra and Christianity.
    Christians at least should know about these similarities but do not as it would threaten their belive system.

    In the same way AGW do not know about the “Hiatus.” as well as the alternative theory of how the earth warms and cools. Periods of warming when CO2 was stable and periods of cooling when CO2 rose.
    In short they do not know the other side of the story.

    1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
    2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.
    3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
    4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
    5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
    6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

  6. Jeffery says:


    There is no such thing as climate astrology. It’s a term made up by Denialists.

    A belief in something you can’t see- like religion.

    Seriously? Do you consider that anything you can’t see is a religion??

    Have you seen an atom, a molecule, a fever, a proton, muon, electron, neutron, infrared radiation, a microwave, ionizing radiation, gamma rays, alpha particles, a hydration shell, a thought, an idea…

    Are these all religions?

    What part of global warming are you blind to? CO2? True, you can’t see it with your eyes, but we can measure it. Temperature? Thermometers are an ancient concept and still work (on a related note, the satellite system you rely on, RSS, doesn’t use thermometers but rather measure “bright” radiation from the troposphere, not the surface where humans live, and uses computer models to transform these reading, ostensibly (lol) into a “temperature”). Is the radiation that satellites measure and that you now believe in, but cannot see, a religious belief?

    Do you not think that CO2, which you don’t believe in, absorbs infrared radiation, which you don’t believe in?

  7. Jeffery says:


    False equivalency. Just because Christianity is an amalgam of beliefs and rituals from more ancient religions doesn’t falsify the theory of AGW.

    Another commenter continually argues that because dietary cholesterol isn’t as unhealthy as once believed, that the theory of AGW is probably false.

    These two non-scientific arguments smell of desperation.

    Climate scientists are not ignorant of the hypotheses of so-called skeptics, they just find the evidence wanting. That’s exactly how science works. That’s not to say that a so-called skeptic won’t generate data that falsifies the theory of AGW. It’s just it gets more and more unlikely as the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory continues to accumulate.

  8. jl says:

    “There is no such thing as climate astrology. It’s a term made up by denialists.” There are no such things as denialists. It’s a term made up by climate astrologists. J puts them up, we knock them down.

  9. Phil Taylor says:

    >False equivalency. Just because Christianity is an amalgam of beliefs and rituals from more ancient religions doesn’t falsify the theory of AGW.

    No it does not. They just seem similar. After years of dealing with Christians and learning how they think, I became aware of similar patterns.

    >That’s not to say that a so-called skeptic won’t generate data that falsifies the theory of AGW.
    It’s not important if skeptics falify evidence. It is if AGW proponents do. There is a lot of evidence on record that they did including James Hansen.

    > overwhelming evidence in support of the theory continues to accumulate.
    Where is that? It seems to be the opposite.
    You have not answered any questions posed to me to you to clarify the evidence. Why?
    One might conclude because when asked you do not have any.

  10. Phil Taylor says:

    >What part of global warming are you blind to?
    The part that connects CO2 to rising temperature.
    The THEORY is that C02 is rising and so is the earth’s temperature. Therefore, one must cause the other.
    However they may be unrelated.
    Some say C02 causes the earth’s temperature to rise. However, some make a strong argument that C02 rises as a result of warmer weather,
    …that CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leading indicator.

    Then some people question:
    How did the earth warm and cool prior to AGW?
    How did C02 increase prior to the industrial revolution?
    What percentage do humans contribute?
    Why did temperature go down in the 1940’s to 1970’s when C02 went up?
    After C02 hit almost 400ppm why did the temperature stagnate?
    Why did climate models based on C02 emmissions fail to predict the actual outcome of the Earth’s temperature?
    Why is this theory promoted by socialists instead of scientists in the public arena and climatologists who do not support AGW are vocal in the public arena.
    If it is “decided” why is there so many climate scholars against it? You know the ones who actually study the climate.

    When Jl said “see” he meant “measure”. You know what he meant, why pretend you don’t?
    Yes you can measure C02 and I suppose you can measure the earth’s temperature even though you and NASA seem unable to tell me the earth’s temperature prior to 2012.
    What you cannot measure is the effect of C02 on the temperature. All attempts thus far have failed. That is the problem.

  11. JohnAllen says:

    This cult not based on science! It simply tries to use science as a cover for their fanatical ways.

    At first they acted like con-artists (looking for money & power) and as the cult increased in size while still retaining the con-artist methods have resorted to intimidation and brute force tactics.

    Notice how those at the top of the cult will gain access to more money and more power if this farce succeeds. If actions speak louder than words then most of the leadership have no real interest in climate change, simply using it to their own benefit.

Pirate's Cove