I should clarify something - while I respect Lorien's opinion, I am absolutely convinced we are in a secular trend crisis, and that it is equally absolutely anthropogenic in nature. Industrialization never existed prior to 150 years ago. The rape of the earth has never proceeded apace as it has over this miniscule stretch of time, relative to all of human history. We have ourselves to blame for crapping on the mother that sustains us. I simply believe "Live Earth" and like events are generally a mountain of crap, and in this I agree with Lorien. Our society is filled with it, in every way - our heads are turned by glittering but cheap baubles and not things of true substance. I actually think this is the very reason we are in the crisis we are in - especially in America, enough is never enough and more is always required. It has been so since we began; it is our cultural and historical legacy. If today it is in the cartoons that assault our children with a manic freneticism, a violent assault of image and sound, yesterday it was at the very inception of our agricultural system: nature was to be subdued, tamed, made use of, wholly, to the point of ruin - then, dumbly, we improve our extractive ability, not our relationship to nature. We "improve" on food, yielding produce that looks bright, unblemished, perfect; except that it tastes like worse than crap, it tastes like nothing. And we lap it up. None of us are immune from this guilt. I write this on a computer. It infects all we do and Madonna won't be the lifeline out.
I get sick of the attitude that if you can find half an ounce of carbon Al Gore or some other greenhouse protester has wasted it must prove that the whole movement is full of hypocrites. It's a meaningless stupid argument. It's all about tackling the man not the ball. The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is clear about global warming. All the red herrings have been debunked. What's left is not "no doubt whatsover", but it's little enough doubt that simple precaution would lead us to take it seriously, given the stakes involved. So why are we arguing about whether some concerts use too many air-miles? We can argue about how best to solve the problem. We can argue about which countries take responsibility for which emissions... but arguing about what thermostat setting Al Gore uses is being trapped by the corporate spin merchants.
Zk0, you started the thread with a clarion call that the "energy revolution starts today!" with an additional call to go to the Live Earth website. I would say the "revolution" began some time ago - perhaps Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was one early volley, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring another, later one. (Nice bit about the "gentle subversive" Carson here. There have been many others. Keep in mind when these were written - over 100 years ago, and 45 years ago, respectively. The "revolution" hasn't only now begun, it just hasn't been won. Yet. My objection to Live Earth, and to events like it, is twofold. Firstly, it adds more to a culture already inured to the sensational. It deadens, not raises awareness, because it promises one big bang and we are used to spectacle. It is useless as a means to get something done. Secondly, the call to return to nature, which is what this all is, is a religious calling, of a sort, in that it seeks to shake from torpor the ridiculous way we live our lives, before it is too late. Because it is so, the adage "it starts at home," I think, is an entirely appropriate standard to require of the standard bearers. Without such personal honor, the words espoused are so much hypocrisy. And we are a culture inured to that, as well. So nothing gets done. Or worse, we dismiss it all as the religious flag waving of a bunch of eco-elitist hypocrites. Lorien was right to point it out, absolutely right. Or, in other words,
Another thing I did notice is that a few of the artists that performed for Live Earth you now see adverts on U.K TV channels for their albums all of a sudden. Coincidence? Of course not lol they did Live Earth for the publicity.
That's a legitimate complaint, isn't it? Al Gore is running around the planet (on private jets) telling us that the planet is doomed in 10 years. It's a crisis! When the people telling me its such a huge crisis starting acting like its a crisis; I'll believe them. Get me? How do you feel about the UN attempting to rewrite history to make it appear as though humans are more responsible for climate change? And reducing the effect the sun has on the planet at the same time? Does that bother you? Science is not run by consensus. Science is run by evidence, experimentation and finding a conclusion. Getting 100 scientists together and having 90 realize that global warming is happening does not make it so. So you are of the mind that Big Oil (ooo, scary!) is driving the anti-global warming movement? See above. When those who are yelling the sky is falling, start acting like the sky is falling, I'll look up. Chicken little, at least, had the courage of his convictions. Let's examine how global warming is exactly like a religion. It has its prophets (both of destruction and salvation) It has its sins It has its end of the world scenario It has its noah's ark and a great flood It has its ten commandments It has both crimes and absolution to remove those crimes It has armies of people preaching about it (Al Gore is training people to go door to door to preach about global warming) It has a Devil, it even has a God It has followers who adhere to the principles, without thought It is a static/non-changing belief It has a bible It also has its profiteers. If you find any ways global warming actually differs from a religion, let me know. I'm actually surprised that many people who believe in science believe so strongly in global warming. Almost every week you can find a story in the news about the climate about the planet's history that destroys another myth in the GW bible. Yet people do not question, do not doubt. It's very much faith based. As I said, I believe there are positive things that can come out of this; I think people being less wasteful, businesses being more resourceful, conservation and reducing the side effects of human progress are all noble causes. But lying to people to make it happen is not the way to do it.
Well here you have 2 billion people (mostly music loving people) watching the show (probably not that many in the UK ) which is a great opportunity for some music commercials. Apple advertised itunes and iphone in the US during Live Earth. Thats just how the capital world works. Your remark is pretty pointless. I am just going to ignore you until you acknowledge global warming.
No. The point of my post is that these hypocrites are not bothered one bit about the environment, they just want to sell more albums and make more money to pollute the world even more than they already do. Yeah only a few million (at it's peak) watched it in the UK according to a follow on from the link lorien posted earlier in this thread. 4.5 million peak so your 2 billion is a very good return, what country had them kind of stats? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467114&in_page_id=1770
for once we agree on something...GW is just another huge scam...its the biggest load of crap I have ever seen, and is going to be one as long as we only get to use 1 sheet of TP per visit (thanks Sheryl Crow!!!)...
HIya zk0. I don't think anyone is - necessarily - saying that global warming isn't happening. However, many people are challenging the idea that this warming is anthromorphic - e.g. Man Made. You mention the IPCC - the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This group - set up in the early 1990's - has taken the lead in warning about anthromorphic global warming (AGW). And why not ? That is it's purpose.. its agenda... as defined by the controlling nations. The IPCC is NOT a neutral scientific research body, but a vehicle to promote the concept of AGW under political guidance. If the evidence is so powerful, why has the IPCC continously striven to corrupt or manipulate it ? Consider..... Ini 1995 the scientists (hundreds of them) signed off the first ever IPCC report. They stated "there is no evidence of AGW". Once the scientists had gone home, the UN beurocrats re-wrote the summary to state "There is strong evidence of AGW", but left the scientists signatures at the bottom. There was absolute OUTRAGE in the scientific community. Why did the IPCC do this ? In subsequent years, any scientists who dissented from the 'mantra' of AGW where excluded from the IPCC report. In other words, the IPCC 'self-selected' it's own conclusions. Why did they do this ? In 2007, the IPCC produced it's Executive report (the summary that goes to the media) stating - once again - that there was overwhelming evidence of AGW. The FULL scientific report (with all the data) was to follow a few months later. Guess what ? In the appendix of the Executive Report was a paragraph that stated "the release of the (full report) may be delayed as its findings are adjusted to meet those of the Executive Report" In other words, the report written by the scientists would be 'adjusted' to meet the findings written by the UN IPCC beurcrats, under political direction. If AGW is so certain, why is the IPCC using such distortion ? It was only 25 years ago that the scientists where warning about Global COOLING. Strange how everyone has forgotten this. So in summary... perhaps AGW is true... but if so, the IPCC findings do NOT prove it. Phew.. what a long rant. Meow Purr.