Sunday, March 28, 2010

6,805,733,000 people did not participate in Earth Hour

My post yesterday advising people to ignore Earth Hour was resoundingly followed by the people of Earth.  Through common sense, ignorance, or willful disregard of WWF, the planet spoke with nearly one voice:
We don't give a damn about Natural Climate Change, Global Warming, or your stupid green religion.

Here is a screen capture of the WWF website this evening which shows a tally of all the Earth Hour Supporters.

Notice that they are still receiving supporters after Earth Day.  One wonders when they will cut off the count.  My calculation as to the opponents of Earth Hour are calculated from the US Census Bureau and the above data from WWF.

I do not have a count of the number of people participating in Human Achievement Hour.  My guess would be that there could not have been more than 10,000 people at the very most.   They do stand out though and they will continue to.

That pretty much closes the book on Earth Hour 2010.  If it was a vote, then opponents have pulled a huge upset and now have a mandate to shut down the AGW hoax and its movement.  Even the WWF did not meet its own goal of 1 billion participants and fell far far far short.   That is half of 1 percent of their stated goal.  Rarely do we see failure of this magnitude outside of Climate Activism.


The_Iceman said...

That's it? I'm dissapointed. I'd have predicted the apathy numbers to be even higher.

Aviator said...

Hey,, they're counting North Korea as supporters and those folks don't have any lights to turn off!

Brian Busby said...

And in 2008, 18,297,204 electors didn't vote for Conservative, but I wouldn't presume to put words in their mouths, nor would I assume all are opponents.

And to be fair to both the WWF and those who participated in Earth Hour, it should be acknowledged that one has to be eighteen and go through a registration process to be counted.

I don't mean to suggest for a second that the WWF met its goal, merely that the number can't be considered in any way accurate... unlike, say, the number of eligible voters who did not vote Conservative.

Spin Assassin said...

@ Iceman: There is always next year brother.

@ Aviator: Just goes to show how silly the whole idea is.

@ Brian Busby: Hello friend. I'm always happy when the left drops by to comment.

I prefer to call those people Voters as electors implies that they did a lot of electing which they did not. Only Conservative Voters should be thought of as electors. More voters will become electors the next time around thanks to the wonderful job Harper is doing. I don't think the Liberals are doing that bad. Its all relative to how good we are doing. It just seems like they really suck.

Anyway, I can presume what I want. The WWF presumes an awful lot. Also, how is it fair to count people below 18? Does it matter if your switch is not yours to turn off? If that is the case many 37 year old non-conservative voters who still live with their parents should also be disqualified. I doubt the WWF is all that interested accuracy anyway. Anyone can fill out the form and these folks don't shy away from falsifying and exaggerating many of their claims so I doubt this would be different. In fact, I rounded the number upwards by about 3000 people. That should take care of all the clueless babies and dogs and cats and such that you would probably like to throw in there.

Cool? Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

Patrick Ross said...

So does anyone know what the Canadian numbers were?

They can't have been overly impresive.

Post a Comment