Earth Hour vs Human Achievement Hour

On Radio Five Live’s Morning Reports today Nick Bryant ended a piece about Earth Hour with a quick reference to the Competitive Enterprise Institute counter campaign, Human Achievement Hour. The response from the newsreader in the studio (Vicki Sperrey?) amused me. Just in case listeners were in any doubt whose side the BBC is on…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Earth Hour vs Human Achievement Hour

  1. Martin says:

    I’d like to turn off the lights at the BBC on a permanent basis.

       0 likes

  2. Cassandra King says:

    “we’ll be turning the all the lights off here” Oooh yeah? In a radio station that uses hefty amounts of the hated and dirty electricity which as we all know is the devils invention that is killing the peoples of the world innit? I mean whats electricity ever done for us eh?

    When this moron tells us that all the lights will go off at the station did she remember a little thing called health and safety and a small thing called buildings and commercial insurance which forbids anyone turning lights in a commercial opperation. So this muppet beeboid actually meant to say.

    “we’ll be turning all the lights off here apart from all the lights which must remain on for legal reasons but instead of turning out the actual lights we will turn off the lights in our brains, that’ll teach em eh?”

    Stupidity squared!

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      Exactly. Unnecessary lights should be off anyway, it’s just more of the same lefty crap from the BBC. As I pointed out before it makes no difference to our energy demands as the bulk of our energy generation comes from coal and nuclear that must run all the time. It’s the smaller power stations that are used for peaks (usually gas) that can be shut down, but as it’s a weekend electrical demand will be mostly coming from the backbone stations anyway.

      The BBC populated by drug taking morons. Meow meow.

         0 likes

    • deegee says:

      Any chance of a photographer popping down to the BBC and photographing the building with all lights blazing? Perhaps a before-during-and after shot?

         0 likes

  3. Asuka Langley Soryu says:

    If they do turn out the lights, they won’t be able to see in order to broadcast their lefty bilge. So, yeah – turn the lights off bitch. Turn them all off. Stupid Beeboid.

       0 likes

  4. D B says:

    Maybe the urge to celebrate human achievement is dulled by working at the BBC.

       0 likes

  5. John Horne Tooke says:

    Lights on = enlightenment
    Lighs off = Dark ages

    The day all the lights go off at the BBC will be a day of celebration for us all.

       0 likes

  6. Ed (ex RSA) says:

    I loved the objector’s comment that as it would be the middle of the day at 8.30pm in Australia (!), switching the lights on would be a waste! Obviously the concept of time zones passed him by!

       0 likes

  7. Philip says:

    I put all my lights on including externals, blaring hifi, MacBook, iMac both running while I went for a nice hot shower.

    Which gives me an idea. Perhaps next year we could have ‘BathHour’, where all those whiffy hippies jumped in the tub, stopped banging on about AGW, scrubbed up a bit and gave us all a break.

       0 likes

  8. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC are peddling their particular blend of lies and selective reporting yet again about the supposed benefits of wind power.
    We hear nothing from the BBC about just how little actual eletricity wind farms are producing and how much they are costing in terms of higher bills, they are the least efficient way of producing useable electricity yet devised and the best only achieve about a fifth of their maximum generation rating and many produce much less than that. The BBC choose not to explain that little fact prefering to produce Denmark as a model for the green revolution which has been swamped in gigantic subsidies to provide turbines that are bought by the UK using yet more subsidies paid for with higher energy bills.
    The UK imports subsidised windmills which it buys with subsidies taken from the public in the form of higher bills, these windfarms do not produce any net electricity whatsover as not one conventional power station has been taken off line.
    Spain is an example of the disaster awaiting us as we build ever more bird killing subsidy guzzling eyesores yet the BBC ignore the uncomfortable evidence that building windmills has been a gigantic and expensive blunder.
    Wind energy takes away real jobs, they cost far more than they will ever contribute in electricity, windmills are a testement to stupidity and yet the BBC see nothing of this.
    What choice do we ordinary people have when faced with such monumental stupidity and deceit? A political class and its tame media lying through their collective teeth and hiding the terrible truth from us about the utter folly of wind farms.
    The political classes are determined to squander our national wealth on a useless and expensive technology that does not and cannot work, it drains money away from real technologies and makes energy bills higher for those least able to pay for them, the very people peddling this crappy technology onto us are the best able to pay those higher bills, the rest of us who have no choice but to pay up have to struggle.

    We are being pushed into accepting lies as the truth, we are being railroaded into poverty and unemployment by a political class that has simply stopped listening to reason prefering instead to listen to itself and the snake oil salesmen who are making billions of pounds selling us the equivolent of snake oil. A tragedy in the making is clear to see and yet the political class are blind to the consequences of their actions, the betrayal is complete.

       0 likes

    • Cassandra King says:

      Is it not utterly heartbreaking to see our nation being crippled in this way? Those entrusted to protect us are actually knowingly betraying us, those who are supposed to do the right thing are doing the opposite, those who we trust to highlight the actual truth are in fact hiding that truth from us!

         0 likes

  9. Guest says:

    I am ambivalent, erring on thinking that the tangible GHG downside being sacrificed at the altar of further worship of ‘awareness’ shows it for the trendy sham it is.

    Or, worse. I just had a tweet from an acolyte seemingly rather perturbed that none of his entire street (both sides) followed his lead and asking for advice.

    I am debating whether to suggest that anyone who spent their time checking out the entire street for ‘compliance’ needs help, not advice.

    I am sure the BBC will have ‘selected’ him for a Vox Pop as we confer, using the same scrutiny thy dd to locate the BA strike-supporting traveller.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Ask him to show you his Stasi credentials before cooperating any further.

         0 likes

  10. Wee Willie says:

    I watched a BBC program about the Natural History Museum, hoping that it wouldn’t be biased. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rq35p/Museum_of_Life_Digging_up_the_Past/
    No chance. At 46 minutes, a talking head advised us that the Mammoth had gone extinct because of extreme climate change, but quickly added that of course it was different then – now we are causing it.
    Next item, archaeologists uncovering hyena turds at a dig in Norfolk.
    “60,000 years ago, the climate here in Norfolk was like it is now in Africa”.
    Then, a little later,
    “There have many ice ages and associated warm periods which have possibly led to extinction of the indigenous population and wildlife”.
    So, compare these two items with the fact that we have experienced a perfectly normal .5 C temperature increase over 100 years.
    Which is more scary?
    Do these people ever look at or listen to what they are doing?

       0 likes

    • Ed (ex RSA) says:

      I don’t think the existance of a series of glacial (cold) and interglacial (warm) periods is remotely controversial. The discovery of the remains alternately warm- and cold-requiring creatures is about as solid as evidence comes, as are glacial landscapes in regions now far from any glaciation.

         0 likes

      • Wee Willie says:

        Ed.

        What is your point? 
        The comment I made highlights the ridiculous BBC warmist agenda, whereby it minimises any degree of climate change occurring in the past, yet gushes uncontrollably about the small and natural variation happening now.
        Perhaps you should read the post before making comments.

           0 likes

  11. 1327 says:

    In this city recently I have seen that various council groups and fake charities have been pushing this one. I find this amusing as the council school across the road from me appear to leave all their lights on constantly so the hypocrisy is a little breathtaking but I suppose it is one rule for them and one for us.

       0 likes

  12. thoughtful ape says:

    This is what I had to say about Human achievement day over at the Adam Smith Institute, ironically before I saw this post. 


    Won’t work in Britain. The socialist left controls all the main organs for the transmission of what passes for public culture in the United Kingdom. The schools, the BBC and most of the rest of the media are firmly in their hands.

    This is how it will play out in the classroom/on the BBC

    A token acknowledgement “yes running water and electricity are quite nice conveniences”

    followed by

    “HOWEVER…. gaiarape thirdworld labor, sweatshops, cultural imperialism illegalwars racism bushhitler globalwarming melting iceaps, white male power, vulgar materialism, rich and poor divide bablablablabla…. (insert lefty talking points ad infinitum)

    None of the people in Britain who control the cultural megaphone and get to set the official national narrative are the slightest bit interested in mounting a spirited defense of western civilization whether the Tories get into power or not.

       0 likes