Questions about the “Live Earth” Concert
Update: Doug Heye at PJM breaks down the hot air to be generated at Live Earth and writes that the concert participants “could end up generating more carbon dioxide than was produced by all of Afghanistan in 2006.”
***
Australian reader Thomas M. sent Al Gore some good questions about the Live Earth concert this weekend:
1.) What will be the true source of the power that will power all the lighting, the amplifiers and speakers, the concessions stands? Will it be massive arrays of solar cells?, Hydrogen fusion cells?, Wind Turbines? Ethanol Bio-Fueled generators?
2.) If the latter, who (which company / manufacturer) will supply them and what model No. engine / generators will be used?
3.) Will the food (for the concessions) be cooked on wood fires? Or perhaps they will use dried out cow & horse manure pellets for fuel?
4.) Will they re-use “used toilet paper” in the restrooms (in following what a “Green” labeled performing artist has recently suggested in the media.
5.) How will the performers arrive at the concert areas as well as their Jacuzzi-equipped hotels? Will it be the normal gas-guzzling plush stretch limousines or will they opt for hybrid or Electric vehicles? Maybe they will go all out and pedal a bicycle?
6.) Will the concert tickets & concert programs be printed on the most biodegradable paper available?
7.) Where will all the proceeds as well as all of the financial pledge donations that you and LIVE EARTH are soliciting be distributed to / earmarked for?
Add your own. Any bets on what the total carbon footprint of the Live Earth concert will be?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Rhymes With Right
- UniversalUpdate.com
- Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit » The Goracles Cynical Concert
- Turning 25 » Blog Archive » AITW: Live Earth’s carbon footprint
- JammieWearingFool
- Things that make you go “BULL$#!+!!!!!!! | BitsBlog
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Skilletfan-My first blog
- Julie’s Fresh Air » “Live Earth” … or Rather … Earth to Gore
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Al Gore, Enviro-nitwits
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Legal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Sister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Riehl World View
» Google Refuses To Remove Michelle Obama Image
Will the massive amounts of linens, costumes and other clothing etc. be laundered by hand with biodegradable soap and dried on a clothes line? Or just sent out to the cleaners using high speed washers and dryers?
What a crock.
Does anyone know how much money the Goracle is making off that carbon footprint exchange website?
Just askin.
Will the performers fly in on their personal Lear jets or fly on a commercial airline?
One of the things that bugs me about global warming is how cyclical it is. It seems every summer… we get this darn global warming, and then just like that it starts getting cooler again as fall approaches.
You would almost think the Sun had something to do with. Fortunately the enlightened all know it is the 4 percent increase in the Earths CO2 caused by humans, and cow farts, or is it cow burps… I get so confused.
…
I just threw up a little in my mouth…
I would love to shove my carbon footprint on the Rev Gore’s “you know where”. Hypocrisy from the former President and Vice President knows no bounds, the beauty is we are a much more informed nation and the masses are not so easily led anymore.
1. The fact that some environmentalists are a little nutty does not make environmentalism wrong. It does not mean that global warming is not happening.
2. There are nutty environmentalist conservatives — hunters. These are people who enjoy nature’s abundance of wildlife by killing it. A tiny fraction of hunters actually eat what they kill.
I have an acquaintance who is flying to NJ with her husband to go to this concert. I asked her how much fuel was this going to use and how much damage to the environment. She gave me an Arianna Huffington answer that the plane was going anyway as it’s a regularly scheduled flight. I hope their food is cooked on manure pellets since that’s what’s going to be coming out of their mouths anyway. Yeah, I’m not one for their hypocrisy either. I’m sure they’ll all get up there and tell us how wonderful they are for caring about the environment and what ogres the rest of us are who aren’t there.
Will only the people that walked/biked/drove in electric cars be allowed into the concert?
Will the beverages be served in biodegradable cups instead of plastic cups and bottles?
What powered the printing devices for the tickets, fliers, posters, and billboards?
What is currently powering the servers running the Live Earth website?
A business man will tell you you have to spend money to make money. But no environmentalist will say “You have to hurt the environment a little to save the environment.” I hope they have a huge carbon offsetting plan in place.
The key to these questions is the last one though, where is the money going?
I agree with LGM. Unfortunately, instead of actually addressing environmental issues, people like MM, spend all their time on proving that people who favor cleaning the environment actually use energy and are not as energy efficient as they can be–wow, what a shock. (Somehow, she excuses the “family values” of say, Newt Gingrich, though).
The other weapon MM and her ilk deploy is to accuse environmentalists of favoring a return to the Stone Age.
Neither is a valid argument. And since MM is so anti-Muslim, why would she not want to be in favor of a policy that makes the U.S. less dependent on foreign (Muslim) oil.
Sheryl Crow was to perform but was relegated to ’tissue disbursement’. “Here is your sheet, just one wipe.” Yay, that ought to fly in the face of the drunk,stoned group of idiots there. How many times will Al fly around to see his dream become reality?
I will not give one red cent until they prove where all the monies went from the “helping” concerts over the past ten years by all the “celebrities” involved. And, most important to me, how much money is being paid the the “celebrity” and for the accommodations for these folk? Who pays for airfare, special rooms, their requested perks and special giveaways? I don’t care, anymore, what the cause is, prove to me in black and white exactly how much of each $1.00 earned went to help those the affair was supposed to help. Anything less than 90 cents is a rip off!!!
Hey Mike B, how many offsets have you bought lately?
1. How will Goracle get there? On his private Jet?
2. Do you (Goracle) really believe what you say? If so, why use a sham to offset your carbon footprint.
3. Why is it okay for you to burn 100 times more fossil fuel than the average person, but its not okay for everybody else?
4. Is your private jet powered by hemp?
5. When you invented the Internet were you using an energy saving computer?
Hey MikeB “spend all their time on proving that people who favor cleaning the environment” I understand there is a professor who said we should eradicate half the human population to save the earth, why don’t you and your ilk start saving the planet?
I have no idea what you base that statement on, but it’s hard to imagine how you could be more wrong. I have never, in 35 years of enjoying the sport, met a hunter that didn’t eat what he killed (varmint hunters excepted, but they’re doing pest control).
I have a news flash for you: the cow in your Big Mac did not die of natural causes and the tuna in your sandwich did not fillet itself. Humans, like many other animals, eat meat. Some people get this meat themselves, some pay others to do it for them. Morally there is no difference. Referring to hunting as “nutty” does nothing but expose your own biases and woeful lack of self-awareness.
Gemini, I bet I lose less energy than anyone here. I live in an apartment, travel by public transportation, almost never use AC, and rarely cook (typical divorced man). But, again, just because Al Gore may be hypocritical about his own energy use, should we not try to protect the environment. And who were two of the greatest environmental Presidents: Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, who created the EPA.
Hey Mike B, why don’t you explain to us how MM has spoken of Newt Gingrich’s “family values”? I’ve been reading “Hot Air” for over a year and her blog for about 3 years and while I don’t pretend to see it everyday, I’ve never seen that.
As part of the “ilk” you refer to, the problem I have with Dems and environmentalists like yourself is that you’re pompous a$$hats who tell us how special and smart you are all the time. I’m sure your “ilk” at DU, KOS, Media Squirts give you your marching orders to come here. Well, at least you’re not censored here like we are there. Tough to be you though isn’t it? What a crybaby!
Mike B, most people know that Richard Nixon created the EPA. However, people like your “I lose-shouldn’t it be use-less energy blah, blah, blah” never want to admit it.
LGM and MikeB aren’t wrong, but neither are we. First, prove to me 100% that what you say “Americans” are responsible for is actually 90% our fault. Then, instead of spending millions and making millions from “carbon credits” get your rich friends together and each contribute 50% of your assets to help out the environment…then, prove what the money you donated to did to help. Then maybe, the rest of us will chip in. But every damn time there is a “problem” they come to us, the little people in America. Why? Because we give the most, always regardless of how its misused. I am sick and tired of being blamed for every thing wrong. Whether you are an American citizen or not, go somewhere else if you don’t this country, how its run and the people in it. We may use the “most” of whatever, but no thanks to the tinfoil hatted leftist loons and their ilk, who, by the way never say a word when millions are murdered by our enemies in horrific fashion, America also creates and gives the most and has for decades!!
MikeB…one of the ways that we can be less dependent on foriegn oil would be to use the oil that we have here. There are literally billions of barrels of oil in the US ready to be used if only the environmental lobby would allow us to drill for it, ANWR, off the coasts of California, Florida, Louisiana, not to mention billions of tons of oil shale in Wyoming and Utah. The oil problem is exacerbated by the fact that the environmental lobby will not allow new refineries to be built in the US. None have been built for over 25 years. THAT is the primary reason that gas prices are so high; lack of refinery capacity.
And I believe I speak for alot of people here when I say I am not anti-Muslim; I am anti-terrorist. And currently it seems most of the terrorists are Muslim. And unfortunately the so-called “moderate Muslims” will not unite and start speaking out against the terrorists acting in their name. Until they do, I believe most people will have a poor opinion of Muslims as a whole.
First, terrig is correct, I meant “use” not “lose.” Second, Sharinlite, I am not blaming Americans only for Global Warming, although we are the biggest energy consummers in the world and that’s not good, from a geopolitical prespective (much foreign oil we import comes from places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezula, Russia). My point about Newt Gingrich is that Conservatives like to point out liberal hypocrits, but give a pass to Newt, Bernie Kerik, Rudy Guiliani who are less than virtuous.
What about the drugs at the concert?
Only organically grown pot?
Will there be a needle exchange program?
Will drugs be cut with earth-friendly substances?
Party on, Al!
The National Weather Service has issued a “smug alert” tomorrow at all Live Earth locations. The “smug alert” is in effect for the entire duration of the concerts. It is advised that people who are sensitive to high levels of self-congratulatory behavior and feelings of “I am better than you are because I drive a hybrid” should remain indoors and not, I repeat, not put on NBC or Bravo for the entire day. Smugness levels are expected to rise well over 350, coincidentally the same weight of Al Gore. Repeating the statement above, there is a “smug alert” tomorrow.
Mike
I do my best everyday to offset your carbon savings. I leave the sunroof open and run the air conditioner. I turn the heat up in the winter and I leave all of my electronics plugged in and on standby. Why? Because its my money and I would rather buy energy than buy “carbon credits” any day.
BTW:
Funniest Al Gore cartoon….EVER!
Well Mike B, the difference between Conservatives and Democrats-at least we try to be nice to people. We try to have values and if you think that a pas has been given to any of those three well again, get your head out of the sand, not true. Liberals aren’t nice people over all. They tell us with their bumper stickers to be nice to humans but on the next sticker to the left they want us “to keep your laws off my body”. I guess babies who aren’t born yet don’t count.
And you have no idea what we do to conseve energy because we don’t make it a point of being smug about it like most libs are. Yes, “smug alerts” will be in full force around the world. I read in the local paper that some of the concerts aren’t doing so hot in ticket sales either. Oh well, such is life.
@terrig: You posted while I was writing. Your friends response was weak, the next question you should have asked her was were they flying standby then.
Reason: Say everyone buying tickets to Live Earth (US) is an environmentalist. That means 79000+ (seating at Giants Stadium) people would only fly if there were seats available. And ~90000 flights per day server 300mil people in America. If that percentage of people didn’t fly ~24 flights per day could be dropped, or 8700+ flights a year.
Now this is very idealistic and inherently flawed because it doesn’t take into account the many other variables needed for accurate calculations, but the illustration still stands. Just because it is a scheduled flight doesn’t mean that it is “OK” to fly on it. Look at it in economist terms: The more demand for seats will increase the need for more flights.
The second thing to add is that the weight of the flight (more passengers and baggage) is directly related to the resources a flight has to use.
@MikeB: I think what is being brought up here is “practice what you preach”. Personally, I think we should do a better job of protecting the environment. But I’m not going to cram my beliefs down anyone’s throat that I’m not willing to do myself. I changed to energy efficient bulbs, I ride public transportation, I use an electric service that promotes wind energy. I may overlook someone’s family issues, because I know I have some of my own.
And it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be happening anyway, even if humanity wasn’t here.
Every hunter I know actually has their game animals professionally butchered after a hunting trip. In many areas, the natural predators of animals like deer, elk, and moose have been eliminated. Hunting is now the only way to control the population of these animals, and thereby prevent large-scale die-offs (from starvation and disease). Just about any wildlife expert will tell you that.
Lets call a spade a spade here.
We know very well what happens when these hypocrites gather at their disgusting displays of progressive excess.
The only thing that needs saving on this planet is the immoral moonbats who would attend such an event cloaked in their finest liberal denial.
I say to you Al Gore: the emperor has no clothes.
A active human body generates around 500BTU/Hour. To reduce Global Warming what is their plan to become Heat neutral (i.e. reach room temperature) on a per person basis?
Will the “residue” from the public facilities be gathered and turned into compost to fertilize organic farms?
This would also help to keep Al and his pals full of what we already know they’re full of.
To answer number 7 …
Live Earth will send proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization chaired by Gore (tickets for the U.S. concert range from $83-$348).
Go figure huh ?
I agree we should practice what we preach. My point is that proving that some high profile liberals use too much energy doesn’t mean their objective to end dependence on foreign oil and to have a clean environment for future geenrations is a valid one, endorsed by Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and many other “liberals” like that.
Second, in answer to some of your comments, I go on this site because I think a reasoned debate is helpful for everyone. Unlike people here, I don’t see the point of listening or reading only things that I agree with. I am not an agent for some liberal blogger (I don’t know any).
Third, I agree that the U.S. has the most generous individuals on earth. But, you all would agree we consume the most energy. Yes you pay for it. But your grandchildren and future generations will pay as well.
Fourth, on carbon credits. They are a free market solution (which I thought good conservatives support) to a problem.
The truth is that you all are aligned with big business that rule the Bush-Cheney administration. They use such wedge issues as abortion, gay marriage, gun control to stay in power while they do their corporate masters bidding. They get ignorant religious fanatics to support Republicans who keep on polluting and not paying taxes. Great jobs–grass rooters.
I note the vigorous exchanges here with Mike B., who is free to post as long as he obeys basic rules, none of which involve maintaining a “correct” political stance. Curiously, conservatives aren’t given the same courtesy over at Democratic Underground.
Yesterday I registered at DU.com and then posted two comments responding to claims that Bush had “obstructed justice” by commuting Libby’s sentence so that Libby wouldn’t “flip” and finger Bush as the one who ordered Valerie Plame outed. I pointed out that Richard Armitage at the State Dept., acting on his own, was now known to be the person who blabbed to Novak, rendering such speculation ridiculous.
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/3×8weh
Know what? My acount was blocked. Within hours.
Apparently Moonbats prefer to live in an echo chamber, while at the same time whining that conservatives “stifle dissent”.
I invite other MM readers to register at DU and see how long it is before they too are cast into the darkness for the sin of pointing out the FACTS.
Maybe Mike B will tell us why DU’s motto seems to be “free speech for me, but not for thee”.
Tomorrow I will be running both my cars, my lawn mower, my weed whacker, my rotor tiller, my power washer all day and will turn my a/c down to 60. I will be doing this to offset Live Earth.
I am a believer in Global Cooling; I need to do what ever it takes to keep the Earth warm.
Global Warming Good – Global Cooling Bad
Liberalism is a disease, save the planet Kill Yourself.
No Carbon credits are a scam plain and simple that have no value when it comes to helping fight climate change. Just like the fact that the profits from these shows are going to a Gore chaired non-profit like that will actually put the money to any real use LOL
Let’s try to stay on topic…
“Fourth, on carbon credits. They are a free market solution (which I thought good conservatives support) to a problem.”
For $16.00 per 1000kg offset. I’ll make a carbon offset certificate for you and for $0.99 more I’ll even put a gold star on it.
Again MikeB “They get ignorant religious fanatics to support Republican..” would that be like the ignorant religious fanatics known to associate with the church of the Rev Al Gore and Global Warming? I asked you kindly from up above to please do your part and remove you and your ilk per your Professor who feels 1/2 the people need to be removed from the earth for it to “heal” and yet still you are here blowing hot air you really are not doing your part now are you?
The way this whole thing is being handled is obviously wrong. Saving our planet has become a partisan issue. It does not take much common sense to realize polluting the earth is not good and should be addressed .
Gore is making millions by selling carbon offsets . That’s part of what makes America great . Remember the pet rock ? If people are naive enough to follow this idiot then who is really the fool here.
I disagree that most hunters do not eat what they kill .The people I hunted with and spoke to while hunting all ate the deer they killed .However if you are talking about them killing smaller animals for sport then I agree. Many people I know get some kind of macho reassurance just by killing anything that moves. I do not tolerate that behavior in front of me so you should not think that all hunters act this way.
Climate changes occur naturally over many human lifetimes; we are still emerging from the last ice age. Greenland was first settled when it was actually green. There is no “normal” weather, only expected temperature highs and lows, rains, snows, and storms based on very limited historical observations.
Given that change is inevitable, even desirable, which do you think would result in greater harm to human life – a 2 degree increase in average global temperatures, or a 2 degre drop?
Al Gore, the caring individual. Here is a Millionaire Elitist. During his last year in office he gave a total of $38.00 dollars to charity. This tells more about the man than anything else.
This is the man that banned color paper in the federal government. Stating that color paper cannot be recycled. Then demanded that the government printing office, at a higher cost, stock and print all of his environmental handouts on ‘green’ paper.
He is an elitist, like many liberals, do as I say, not as I do. Take any issue from nuclear power plants to windmills. Liberals are against them for various reasons that have nothing to do with saving the environment. They want us to live in the stone age, while they, the elite, live a life of luxury at our expense.
From Roger Friedman – speaking of Live Earth headliner Madonna and her investments (millions $):
“The companies include Alcoa, Ingersoll Rand, Weyerhaeuser, and several others associated with oil exploration, digging, and refining including British Petroleum, Schlumberger (a chief competitor of Halliburton), Devon Energy, Peabody Energy, Emerson Electric, Kimberly Clark and Weatherford International.
In 2002, the University of Massachusetts’ Political Research Institute ranked Alcoa No. 9 on a list of all-time toxic American companies. And I don’t mean toxic as in toxic bachelor. This is toxic as in air pollution.”
here’s the link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288295,00.html
To paraphrase Clinton (he not she)
“It’s the hypocrisy stupid.”
YAWN! Exposing the hypocrisy of the left accomplishes nothing! The public has been aware of the Democrat lies, inconsistency, and idiocy for decades, yet that awareness has done nothing to assuage the left’s political viability.
Why? I don’t know why for sure, but I believe the answer lies in the voluminous American population that is ignorant, gullible, and just plain stupid. C’mon! What kind of intelligent, thinking person would give Al Gore, the ultimate buffoon, the time of day?
I’m not against morons or anything, I just don’t like them controlling the destiny of my nation at the ballot box.
We do NOT use the most energy no matter how hard I try. China exceeded the U. S. this month. Now, will the koskids please take their whines to the nearest Chinese blog.
#39, you’re the best. I really enjoy spending my money on energy as well. None of my vehicles burn carbon credits. But I have been running ethanol for years. All my BIG, beautiful GM vehicles make do with no ill effects.
Liberal hypocrisy is telling. This is old news but certainly on topic here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
I was just thinking how proud I am being referred to as part of ” Michelle’s Ilk ” . Thank you for the compliment.
Mike B, again with the insults on # 34. Perhaps you were talking to me although I didn’t see you mention my name. Let me go through the points of your wonderous post for you and explain myself.
# 1-why must liberals like yourself always telling us that you’re practicing what you preach? Why can’t you just go about it quietly like most of the rest of us? It’s really annoying but it’s a bad habit that liberals have. Often you’re not able to see the sarcasam in our posts but again, I’ve found liberals really don’t have a sense of humour unless it’s making fun of people who are conservative then your laughing your a$$ off.
Again, you tell us you come on here because you want “reasoned debate” then you insult us again. I would like to have something I posted on Kos, DU, and a few others stay up there for more than 1 minute. You are allowed the courtesy of having your comments on here stay. You are not silenced here as liberals do to us.
How about China & India? They consume far more than we do and yet it’s all our fault. Again, you do not know what we do and many of us are just kidding when we say we’re going to run the ac tomorrow with the windows wide open all day.
Carbon credits are a lot like pleinary indulgences that the Catholic Church used to sell. It was ridiculous then and carbon credits are ridiculous now and I’m a practicing Catholic.
So in your sad little world, if one is pro-life one is a freak? If one thinks capitialism is good, again a freak?
The fact that you’re an unhappy divorced man is not our problem. You call those of us who are religious “ignorant”. Perhaps you should look to your own deportment before calling others names. Also, explain to me why George Soros has so much money off shore-well I’ll tell you-no taxes. So that’s a good thing in your mind. Please, quit with the holier than thou attitude. Bully for you taking public transportation, many of us do as well but feel no need to broadcast such a fact.
#35 Fooldroolcup-I’ve had the same experience yet MikeyB feels put upon here. I guess he’s probably on board with the professor who blames Mr. Rogers for all our troubles in this country. Funny isn’t it?
#36, You forgot about the chainsaw. I’ll have one of those bad boys running tomorrow as I teach a couple of trees a lesson for growing over my house.
While you adjust your tinfoil hat I’ll formulate a response.
First, if you mean to suggest that serving “corporate masters” is exclusively a Republican failing then you are either ignorant, foolish or both.
The way folks like you rail about the evils of “big business” while enjoying a standard of living that would be impossible without it always amuses me.
Oh, and for the record I’m an athiest with a college education and a white collar profession, which kinda sinks your whole “ignorant religious fanatics” theory.
You ought to drop the senseless generalizations and do a little thinking, you may like the results.
Such a typical leftist love fest. And, of course, the love is directed all toward themselves.
If there has been any indicator of the left’s self absorption, it has been these huge concerts over the years where both the attendees and artists get so full of themselves that they actually think they’re doing something about the problem.
Hunger in Africa? Let’s have a concert! AIDS ravaging the world? Let’s have a concert! Debt burden too much for third world countries? Let’s have a concert!
The artists piously donate the proceeds from the album to whatever NGO gets fabulously wealthy by benefitting from these things. Of course, they get a million dollars in free advertising for their upcoming concert tour or album – monies they have no problem keeping. And their tarnished image as drugged out, super rich dilletantes gets a much needed polishing. Hey! This guy cares about Mother Earth! So what if he’s an addle brained nincompoop who never graduated from high school presuming to tell the world how to solve its problems. He’s cool.
And the audience gets in the spirit of the event by feeling a rank sense of superiority over the rest of us simply because they care enough to stand around and smoke weed, drink beer, and try and pick up someone for a little slap and tickle session afterwards. In a very large way, this kind of thing breeds a contempt for how truly complex the world is and how difficult these problems are to solve.
The original Live Aid concert didn’t even begin to feed the starving in Africa. That’s because (as any high school senior studying current events could have told them) Africa’s problem is not food, it’s politics. When regimes deliberately set out to starve people as Ethiopia did back in the 80’s with Eritrea or as the Sudan has tried in Darfur, it doesn’t matter a fig whether western liberals hold one concert or a thousand. Unless you have some guns and an army, people will die of starvation.
But liberals don’t do complexity. Much better to sing songs and dance while believing you’re doing something noble when in actuality, all you’re doing is making yourself look like an idiot.
Okay, once again I must take fingers to keyboard and say this: Yes, there are liberals who are elitists and hypocrites and there are conservatives who are as well. Pointing out hypocrisy I noted Newt’s “family values”: I got to divorce my wife and serve her papers in the hospital because I need a younger model and then cheat on the younger model while leading the charge against Pres. Clinton for adultery.
Or the fact that the divorce rate is much higher in Red States like Arkansas than Blue States like Mass.
Okay, so there’s enough hypocracy to go around.
There is a universal concensus that Global Warming exists and humans caused it. And, the U.S. consumes the most energy per capita. China may consume more as a whole, but they have over a billion people. Then again, some conservatives have no respect for science, i.e., those who believe in intelligent design.
MikeyB, the insults again. I’m so sorry you’re unhappy. Newt Gingrich is not someone I would ever vote for yet you keep pounding that message about what a jerk he is. We’re aware of that fact. How about Ted Kennedy-he only killed someone but whatever. So sorry to keep your fingers at the keyboard.
James and terrig–I agree the Democratic party is controlled by corporations and unions, no question about it. If corps. and special interests didn’t run both parties, we’d have universal health care, fair taxes (where Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary), and so on.
If recent events hold up, concerning the whereabouts of alGore and coinciding weather patterns, the concert goers should take their snowshoes and parkas.
jus’ in case
Environmentalism is the worst thing that has happened to the environment in a very long time and given the problems with the data there is a very real possibility that global warming is in fact not happening.
Have a nice afternoon all. Going to get in my gas guzzler SUV, Volvo XC 90 & go grocery shopping at the fabulous commissary. Have fun!
If Global Warming activists have their way, the US will become a secondary nation in the global economy.
Two nations, China and India, have the fastest growing industrialized populations on earth. We are now competing for resources worldwide that we have taken for granted for years. China and India don’t give a crap about Global Warming and they won’t for another 100 years.
Meanwhile, Gore is leading a campaign to weaken our economy by imposing fines and fees on our leading companies, which will make them less competitive in a global economy.
And, MikeB, since we’re talking about global warming let’s think about this:
Q: What is the byproduct of a hydrogen fueled car?
A: Water vapor
Well, that sounds really cool until you realize that water vapor is the most aboundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Of the greenhouse gases in the environment, water vapor is a bit over 96% and carbon comes in at around 3%. Also, water vapor absorbs 3x the energy (heat) of carbon. (Al Gore conveniently leaves out any mention of water vapor in “An Inconvenient Truth”, ironic).
So, if Global Warming experts are so experistic (a contrived word), why do they push for hydrogen power that would seemingly produce a more potent greenhouse gas?
The sheep are plummeting from the cliff.
Wow, that’s a bold statement. People that believe in intelligent design have way more respect for science than “evolutionists”. Inventing new “science” so they can “prove” a theory.
Trae, sorry to inform you: the Bible is not literally true. The world is much more than 6,000 years old. Humans have only been on earth a relatively short time. If Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam and Eve, how did they reproduce? If Jesus was resurrected, why do we say he died for our sins? Did we need the ten commandments to tell us murder is wrong?
Shouting down and threatining opposing viewpoints does not equal a universal concensus. There are more and more articles out daily from scientists in a broad spectrum of fields that shoot down most global warming hysteria. Most scientests agree that humans play a small part if any in the trend. So please be careful when you try and accuse conservatives of being anti-science when the left activly try to destroy any factual dissent to what they believe.
O man, don’t even get me started about what “lgm” said:
“2. There are nutty environmentalist conservatives — hunters. These are people who enjoy nature’s abundance of wildlife by killing it. A tiny fraction of hunters actually eat what they kill.”
Show me your source that says a tiny fraction of hunters eat their kill. You obviously know nothing about what you are spouting off about. Hunters are the original conservationists, and they don’t conserve just because it is cool. Get a clue. (And not all hunters are conservatives, either)
There is a universal concensus that Global Warming exists and humans caused it.
There is NOT ‘universal consensis’ and it would not prove it true if there were.
Here is a neat fact bio-fuel will increase world hunger
what is the compassionate lefts answer to that ?
Fact : The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year. The grain needed to fill that same tank every two weeks over a year will feed 26 people.
Bluegrasshindu, you beat me to it!
Good post.
Have you noticed that none of the big liberal tree hugers Like U2 or Sheryl Crow or Barbara Streisand are going to be there?? So does this mean that Hollyweird also thinks that Gore is off his rocker?
Only one square per person please!
Umm, no. This is solely so Al Gore can stop using his own money to bankroll his trips all over planet earth doing speaking engagements and selling his stupid movie. If he says one word about saving the planet he can now use funds raised from these concerts to pay for his travel costs.
You understand that Gore only flies on a private jet!
Why do I not see Green Day on the list of artists? I don’t know who’s in the band, maybe they’re coming ala carte.
To be more precise, liberals don’t do “real world”, choosing instead to dwell in the land of theory and make-believe. Life is much simpler there.
MikeB, I respect science and not pseudo-science. I an effort to help inform you about the lack of consensus read this article. Tim Ball has the scientific background that Algore lacks.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Was there consensus that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth? Look how that turned out…
MIKEB, okay, I tried to ignore this, and I must say attacking your marriage is wrong by any means. You stated a universal global consenus that ‘man made’ global warming is real. That is another ‘lack of debate’ liberal statement. The ‘facts’ are the top scientist in their fields disagree and were ignored and frozen out of the debate. The same groups that told us carbon dioxide gases will cause a second ice age now scream global warming. They approach the UN with no facts, data, stating they will come later, kind of like the check is in the mail.
Answer me this Mike, several months ago a report was released that the ice caps on another planet were melting. When questioned why, the scientist responded, well the SUN has gotten hotter. GEE, where does this play into man made global warming issue. Wouldn’t one think that something like the Sun getting hotter would have an effect on our planet. Why would such item be missing from the issue. The same reason the Vikings settled on Greenland in 1000AD only to be driven off again by 1200AD, the same reason seal remains have been found buried 15 feet in the ice 20 miles from the nearest open water, the same reason any one of a hundred significant global events does not figure into the data of global warming alarmist. In the words of Jack Nicolson, They can’t handle the truth.
No, there is not. Heck, if it were only I disagreeing, there wouldn’t be a “universal consensus”. But it’s not just me. It’s a substantial portion of the science community, both in the USA and abroad. Articles by these scientists and climatologists have been posted on this and other sites, but are largely ignored by the media.
The world was warming and cooling for eons before man put his first cave painting on the wall, and we can hardly be responsible if we didn’t even exist yet!! To try and say we are to blame is ignorant in the extreme. To mimic media repetition of the LIE that there is universal consensus of this sort is willfully ignorant.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it doesn’t become truth.
One point in my life I had the scientific method explained to me as “Testing a hypothesis by repeating the same experiment multiple time that generate the same result each time.”
Give me a thousand identical worlds and I will run experiments to Scientifically prove “Global Warming.” But, we do not have access to a thousand identical worlds. So we could use empirical analysis.
So, if I place a person in a chamber filled with only with a nitrogen atmosphere they will die. The conclusion could be Nitrogen is deadly. Seventy percent or so of the atmosphere on Earth is nitrogen. So, political policy to recommend might be to remove all this known deadly gas from our atmosphere but if you place someone in a chamber with a pure oxygen atmosphere they also will die. So, looking at such issues with preconceived concepts of absolutes and non-critical thinking will lead to problems. This is not a Bush/Gore/Left-Handed-magnetic-twist/Right-Handed-magnetic-twist but one of reason. Group think can lead to the fable lemmings and their reported approaches to cliffs.
LGM, you need to meet some hunters instead of sounding so silly. Animal populations need to be controlled. You should really visit your local state or national park and speak with the employees. They are also environmentalists and know the importance of animal population control, even if you don’t. This is why there are licenses and government bodies that monitor it. You are also incorrect on the “tiny fraction that eat what they kill.” You sound like someone who has never stepped foot in a forest nor visited a rural area in this nation.
The Goreacle is the ultimate snake oil salesman. I can’t get over how many idiots blindly follow this new religion. Almost as gullible as those following the “Moon God,” it will be interesting to see what happens when his disciples finally figure out they are being conned.
Nice! I liked that.
Yashmak:
To be fair, there is a large body of scientific opinion that agrees that the planet is getting warmer.
There is a still large but significantly smaller body of opinion that blames at least some of this warming on humans and our industrial output over the last century.
To simply dismiss these findings – and there’s a mountain of evidence to support it with a much smaller amount of evidence that contradicts it – simply ignores the debate that is going on.
I hasten to add a couple of things:
1. No one knows how much of this warming is caused by man and how much by other factors as you cited. This makes any “solution” to global warming idiotic. We know that the advocates for draconian global warming solutions are pushing a political agenda and could care less if their prescriptions “solve” the problem. They are anti-globalists or anti-industrialists. They are anti-American in that they wish to bring our economy to its knees. It is a shame that the Al Gores of the world have hijacked this debate because there may in fact be things that we can do short of destroying our economy that would temper any problems that would arise as a result of rising temperatures.
2, Since the earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age – about 20,000 years, no one knows how much of the rise over the last century is a result of factories and how much is due to an anomolous period in climate history. We have seen these kinds of periods where there’s a sharp rise or fall in temps over a short period of time – decades and centuries rather than multi-millenial epochs. But what makes the last 100 years so radically different is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to other spikes in temps. And it’s not just the amount of CO2, it’s where it is in the atmosphere (fairly low) – clearly the result of industrial activity. But again, no one can possibly translate that information into temperature.
3. Meteorologists are the biggest global warming skeptics. They make the point that you can’t predict the weather more than 30 days out and yet the Al Gores of the world are predicting temps 100 years from now? Madness!
The issue should absolutely be studied and those common sense steps we can take without ruining our economy that can be taken, should be taken. But to simply dismiss the bulk of scientific evidence that shows the earth warming up doesn’t make any sense. Might as well ignore a comet heading toward us. The wise course is to continue trying to understand the impact of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere and not give in to the alarmists and destroy industrialized civilization.
“Red States like Arkansas”
?????????
I wish.
After wading through all of the comments here, I’m still amazed at how people, in general, think that Global Warming is “scientific”.
Science is NOT consensus. Period.
“Scientifically speaking, using the Global Warming mindset, God is real. Why? Well, because a consesus of the American people believe in a God.
A great point was made about the Ice caps melting on Mars. Gee, it MUST be because of those martians in their SUV’s.
The scary part of Global Warming is how people just suck it up like a sponge because to disagree with it is seen is un-scientific.
Al Gore for the Nobel prize? How about the scientists that, ONLY 30 years ago, said that we were heading for the next ice-age. THAT was scientific consensus as well.
It’s funny when you bring up “Science” to those who believe it because it’s blasted all over the media.
Oh, here’s the exit question for the future…..
In 10-20 years, when scientists PREDICT THAT THE TEMPERATURE WILL START GOING BACK DOWN DUE TO NATURAL CYCLES, will Al Gore claim credit for this????
Yooouuuu BETCHA!!!!
Please just know the difference between science and consensus
Ludacris is appearing at the NY concert. Will Tipper be providing parental warnings before he goes on?
Harry:
You make a good point about consensus. Let’s look at the science of global warming – atmospheric measurements, ice core samples, CO2 and climate modelling, as well as some more recent models using the most powerful computers on earth.
It’s a mixed bag. For instance, no CO2 model has come within 50% of the true measurement of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the models are 10-20 years old). It is believed the oceans are sucking up a lot of the CO2 which is born out by increased algae clouds and other oceanic phenomena (warmer seas, also).
On the other hand, sophisticated atmospheric measurements of greenhouse gasses match the profile of human generated CO2 – less so with methane. I’m not an atmospheric physicist but my understanding is that part of the confirming nature of this evidence is where the concentrations of CO2 are – in the lower atmosphere. Modelling since the 1970’s – when NASA was looking at Venus very carefully – shows that CO2 this low in the atmosphere and at the concentrations they are finding it are contributing some unknown percentage to the earth warming.
Conclusive proof? Hardly. But taken all together, the scientific evidence suggests that at least some of the earth’s rise in temperature is due to industrial activity over the last 100 years.
Additional evidence may be forthcoming that disproves that postulate. That’s what science is all about – proving or disproving evidence based on further experimentation. Some climate modellers have already drastically curtailed their estimates of temp rise over the next 100 years due to additional factors they didn’t take into account when they originally developed their model.
This is the process of discovery. And you’re right. I think a lot of this hysteria is generated because people worry that if they don’t “believe” in global warming, they’ll be considered unsophisticated and stupid. But that’s been the goal of the anti-industrialists from the start. They are banking on people’s ignorance to push their political agenda. And too few scientists are standing up to them and calling them out for the luddites they truly are.
For those who doubt global warming, caused by man, what do you say about this:
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
If you re-read my post, I think you’ll find that’s exactly the point I was making, that debate is still going on. It was MikeB that posted of a “universal consensus”, not I. In fact, you and I are in near complete agreement on this issue.
Do some research. The carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere have been many times higher than they are now, many times before. That humans weren’t even around at that time just strengthens the arguments of the sceptical.
Here, you hint at one of the weaknesses of the global warming camp’s arguments. They use, as a starting point, a relative low in global temperatures. Yes, that’s right. 150 years ago, the earth was in a temperature ‘trough’. The temperature had been gradually falling for decades (if not centuries) before that, and has been gradually increasing since.
You conveniently ignore new evidence that the Antarctic ice cap is thickening in other areas.
The point is, there’s no real way to be sure WHAT our impact is on global warming. It’s a good idea to take reasonable steps to combat pollution, I now ride a motorcycle instead of a car to work, partially for that reason. But to implement ‘fixes’ for a problem that remains ill-defined, fixes that might permanently hobble our economy, THAT is sheer idiocy.
MikeB: I would say that you have sufficient evidence to say that the Earth is has gotten warmer in the last 100 years.
However, the problem is, as CO2 levels have increased over the last 10,000 years, the earth’s temperature has actually decreased. You wouldn’t see this on Al Gore’s graph because he squishes the final 10,000 years together to make it appear as if CO2 increase and temperature increase ran concurrent. Unfortunately, Global Warming theorists, this fact doesn’t support your theory.
You’re basically taking a period of about 50,000 years and analyzing 100 years of it to prove a theory. To put it in perspective, that would be like judging a persons entire life based on less than 2 months of their life (assuming they live 75 years).
Sure, it looks like it works for the last 100 years, but when taken over the last 50,000 years the Global Warming theory is nothing more than “hot air.”
Harrystar said it best…and it’s always true…”Science is NOT consensus. Period.”
One final note on this topic of science vs. consensus.
I have seen many on the Global Warming side say definitively, “No, it’s not possible”, even with evidence that points against their theory.
Science is “supposed” to be non political. It just seems that some scientists have a hard time being proven wrong vs. their theory being proven wrong.
Tell me something Mike- How in the world do you know that the Bible is not literally true?
We say, that Christ died AND rose again in order to conquer sin AND death.
As for Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel, you could do some research and come up with the answers. They might not satisfy you but there are answers. And yes, apparently we do need the Ten Commandments to tell us, among other things, not to kill.
Yashmak and Ed, First, the scientist who discovered the thickening of ice in Anartica stated that he believes that Global Warming exists and that his study does not disprove it. In fact he took Ann Coulter, among others, to task to stop using his data to support the anti-global warming side, because that is not what believes and that is not what he supports. Second, assuming the truth about temps for the past 10,000 years, ignores the fact that the industrial revolution is say 200 years old. It was only after we started burning oil and coal that cretaed the greenhouse effect. Yes, it is difficult to parse human activity from overall physical phenomenon. But, to say that introducing CO2 into the atmosphere which is totally man-made will have no effect on the environment does not make sense.
On that alleged Anatctica issue:
Well, in the New York Times yesterday, Peter Doran makes it clear that it is actually Ann Coulter, who is incorrectly using and distorting his research in the service of her agenda.
Cold, Hard Facts By Peter Doran
Published: July 27, 2006
“In the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight… Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” …Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?”
And I have another caution for you; friends, watch where the money from this thing goes. We have some very strict laws in this country as regards foreign donations to our campaigns for elective office here in these United States. Laws which Clinton /Gore ignored, particularly as regards China, but not limited to that country. Now we have concerts all over the globe… Supposedly the purpose for these concerts is to raise the issue of “global warming”… or was it to increase the problem of global warming?
Oh well, anyway, watch where the money from this thing goes. How much of this money, and how much of this momentum, will find itself being directed at Gore’s presidential aspirations?
Consider yourself forewarned.
Great dialog today! Thanks everyone.
Al Gore, with his Harvard degree in government, thinks that since he is almost a political scientist, then he must also be a real scientist.
MIKEB, you stated …’introducing CO2 in the atmosphere which is totally man made’… do some research my friend, the Earth naturally produces C02, plants have used it long before the industrial revolution. You even noted this in your previous rants. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, no oxygen, and no circle of life.
There is also the TIME magazine article June 24, 1974 which discusses the ‘global cooling’ trend of the previous 3 decades and the threat of a new Ice Age.
My friend, I do not dispute that the Earth is going through a warming trend. I do dispute that man is the contributing factor. Before I agree to give one trillion dollars (the majority of which will go into politicians pockets) to people that cannot predict the weather next week, they had better come prepared with undisputed, provable, verifiable, real, non-analytical, scientific data from the ‘top’ professionals in their fields (not some political lackey) to prove their claims. It is just that simple.
I am a scientist, an engineer and an investigator (yes, I work for the government). And even though I am a dumb, ignorant Christian (your words) I can normally tell the difference between fact and propaganda. Show me the facts, let me be part of the debate, educate me, do not indoctrinate me. Do not tell me the debate is over when only one side has been allowed to weigh in.
Wait, you mean an effort to fix the effect we have on the environment will negatively affect the environment? I mean, that IS what you’ve just said. Human efforts to heal the ozone hole are contributing to global warming. Great.
Tell me again why it’s a good idea to go full-bore at fixing ‘global warming’ before all the facts are in.
SirKnob puts it well. Yes, a warming trend is occurring, as scientist have shown to have occurred many times in the past. However, having read the arguments of both sides, I don’t see the conclusive evidence that man is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back wrt the environment. Time magazine’s fear-laden cover story of 1974 leads me to wonder what the environmental community is going to be pushing in 2040. Global Averaging?
Here’s more scientists bucking the so-called “universal consensus”:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
They’re conclusion? Earth’s temperature has more to do with the sun’s cycles than man’s input. Seems obvious.