Right Wing Launches Dishonest, Misinformed Attacks Against Live Earth

Who would dare do that?

I would.

So why are we arguing about whether some concerts use too many air-miles?

Probably because of the history of well-intentioned aid concerts, which have enriched the concert promoters and done nothing for the 'cause' they were supposed to be all about.

Probably because of the history of well-intentioned aid concerts, which have enriched the concert promoters and done nothing for the 'cause' they were supposed to be all about.

I remember the famous concert USA for Africa and the beautiful song written and composed by Michael Jackosn and Lionel Richie how much money made and still Africa is the same or worst with the children and women dying in Darfur.

Nothing like a good old shoot the messenger campaign. But there is a completely different level of hypocrisy here than the homophobic fundavangalist who likes (or liked?) gay sex. One is so absurd it's comical, the other is grasping for straws propaganda that makes the fault finders just look like jackholes. Because everyone knows that those who want to prevent global warming need to stay home and keep their CO2 emitting mouths shut.

Live Aid was never intended to solve the problem.

It was only meant to raise awareness, and it did.

What is the benefit to raising awareness if it doesn't lead to a solution to the problem?

Live Aid was never intended to solve the problem. It was only meant to raise awareness, and it did.

Sure, I noticed that Madonna was full of wrinkles.

...Where all this is headed is a push for a global carbon tax which is essentially a tax on breathing. To start with, any world entity with the power to enforce any kind of world tax should raise the red flags.

...There isn't a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming but there is consensus that the world is warming and that the sun is more active then it has been since we've been able to measure such things. Today in fact there is a new massive sunspot on the horizon.

...The handbook that is given out to every participant of the concert is the "The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook" which was written by David de Rothschild, the youngest member of the Rothschild family that essentially controls all the worlds finances and stands to gain greatly by the implementation of a global carbon tax because they are after all the puppet masters of the world.

...I just wish people would look at things beyond the face value in all of this because we're being set up by our good intentions to be forced to feed a globalist agenda machine with our hard earned money.

...A world carbon tax is an excuse to centralize a world authority that can bring about a tax, as no institution currently has that power. Carbon emissions go into the air and if we are taxed on that it is a tax on polluting air, and you breath air, right?

...Scientists can see the earth is warming, the debate is why it's warming. If you think it's carbon emissions from all the factories and all the cars and what not heating things up then you're not taking into consideration all the natural sources of carbon emissions like volcanoes, decaying foliage, and the ocean.
...Of course our heat source is the sun and it's been spitting out massive amounts of radiation via solar flares which is the most obvious culprit where temperate is concerned.

...To give you a crash course on the Rothschid family history they are a renowned family of world bankers documented in funding both sides of almost every war in history over hundreds of years, they invented the concept of fractional reserve banking, which is the concept of loaning out 80% more money then you have in holding and thereby creating inflation.
...If you need any kind of verification on this a simple google search will suffice.

...A world carbon tax is an excuse to centralize a world authority that can bring about a tax, as no institution currently has that power. Carbon emissions go into the air and if we are taxed on that it is a tax on polluting air, and you breath air, right?

Um, no. Just... no.

...Scientists can see the earth is warming, the debate is why it's warming. If you think it's carbon emissions from all the factories and all the cars and what not heating things up then you're not taking into consideration all the natural sources of carbon emissions like volcanoes, decaying foliage, and the ocean. ...Of course our heat source is the sun and it's been spitting out massive amounts of radiation via solar flares which is the most obvious culprit where temperate is concerned.

But see, scientists say otherwise.

...The link you posted was very very long and I got through more then half of it, but it said they think the sun, volcanoes, and natural carbon sources have an overall effect but they don't think it can explain the current warming trend. But after each explanation of the methods used to come to these conclusions they admitted the findings were really based on speculation and explained the methods used were not concrete proof one way or the other. So they don't know one way or the other really, but this is what their informed speculations are. Did you really read this before posting it?

...Gore has openly called for a world carbon tax, and any world tax would have to be enforced by an international organization. Are you saying no, you don't breathe air, or are you simply uninformed?

@Dennis #10.2 - I absolutely agree with your point. And frankly, yours would certainly have been a better argument than that posted by the article. The article feels too much like spin. Sites like ThinkProgress do a lot to point out and break through the spin they consider evil, but turn around and do the same thing to propagandize projects they align themselves with.

@Ardith - Thanks :)

@ChAng - Be careful with the World Bank conspiracy stuff. First - you'll be able to attribute everything to a Rothschild, a Rockefeller, et all and that starts to get a little scary; then it makes your friends worry about you. Second - if you keep it up, they're going to get you. :)

I'm saying there is no logic to your first point. Saying that you're taking emissions on something that goes into the air (which you happen to breath) is not taxing the air. You're not taxed on how much you breathe, you're taxed on how much you put out into the air. I've never heard of anyone wanting to tax the actual amount of CO2 you emit. Also, no I'm one of those people that doesn't breathe air. You should try it some time.

As to the paper, scientists (because of the nature of science) have to explain where bias is possible, etc., etc. Have you read the original key biochemical discoveries? They always say "there is the possibility that this isn't true because of this, this, and this." It doesn't mean that there's not strong evidence to believe what they've published. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be published.) Understand?

...Here's one of the many articles about a carbon tax.
...Writing off the suns influence on global warming would be more accepted if other planets in our solar system weren't warming up themselves. Such as Mars, as noted by National Geographic and the Financial Post. Other planets include Pluto and its moon Triton.
...The fact that the sun is going through it's strongest cycles ever should be noted when debating this issue.

...foufga, I understand what you're saying about the link you posted, I was illustrating what the article itself said, that they really don't know conclusively but their findings are an educated guess.

...steve, I appreciate your concern for my well being from a shadowy elite stealing me away in the night, and as a lot of that stuff is written off as "conspiracy" there are many well documented historical facts about the Rothschilds that verify their economic influence on an international level, and I am weary of the kind of global elitism they represent.

...Whether or not humans are a significant factor in global warming it boils down to personal responsibility and the solution is not taxation. That is what I'm trying to make apparent here.

But if that raised awareness, causing people to pollute less in the future, would it be worth it?

http://www.latimes.com

Wall and Gore have come under fire, though, by critics such as British rock star Bob Geldolf, the key architect of the Live Aid and Live 8 shows, who said this latest concert-for-a-cause was unfocused and unwieldy.
...
The message did not reach everyone, much to Parks' frustration. Behind her, a man threw a beer bottle in the trash without glancing at the recycling signs. Parks rolled her eyes, pulled it out and swore at him. "Then we have the [expletives] who don't even care," she snapped. "They just want to see the stars."

Live Aid -Criticisms and controversies

Although a professed admirer of Geldof's generosity and concern, Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly has been critical of the Live Aid producer's oversight of the money raised for starving Ethiopian people, noting (in June 2005) that much of the funds were siphoned off by Mengistu Haile Mariam and his army. O'Reilly believes that charity organisations, operating in aid-receiving countries, should control donations, rather than possibly corrupt governments. [4].
...
Other critics have argued that donations to charity organisations often end up being used by corrupt governments as well. Much of the money raised by Live Aid went to NGOs in Ethiopia, some of which were under the influence or control of the Derg military junta. Some journalists have suggested that the Derg was able to use Live Aid and Oxfam money to fund its enforced resettlement and "villagification" programmes, under which at least 3 million people are said to have been displaced and between 50,000 and 100,000 killed.[6]

One issue is that this type of concert has never and will never do anything significant to raise awareness. If you're somehow not aware of the issues related to global warming, seeing Madonna gyrate is not going to miraculously educate you on the issue. There is nothing to suggest that big rock concerts have ever been or could ever be effective tools for public education. These musicians are entertainers, not educators or politicians or policy analysts or climatologists (except for those research guys performing for the penguins).

There is nothing to suggest that big rock concerts have ever been or could ever be effective tools for public education.

From UNICEF's website:

In 1971, the pioneering former Beatle, hearing Ravi Shankar's distress, used his fame and the power of music to organize the Concert for Bangladesh. At that time, the country was ravaged by floods, famine and civil war, which left 10 million people — mostly women and children — fleeing their homes.

Harrison set the precedent that music could be used to serve a higher cause. The Concert for Bangladesh was one of the most ambitious humanitarian efforts in rock music history. It produced an extraordinary contribution for UNICEF, exceeding $15 million. Perhaps more importantly, the concert focused global attention on the crisis in Bangladesh and raised the consciousness of other musicians and millions of their young fans to a new awareness of UNICEF and its role in the developing world.

It is a noble cause and I commend them for trying. I'm not entirely sure that I really care about global warming though. It is a problem but it isn't something that I am a strong believer in at this point. I do my best to conserve... that isn't because I'm afraid the sky is falling... its because I like to save my money.

I agree with you Brian, for the most part. I am guessing that at least SOME of the people who watch/attend might pay attention to whatever "hot cause" is being pushed, but overall most people just listen to the music. I would really like to see an empirical study done. I would bet it would confirm our suspicions.

@ Mike Meyers...er I mean Chang, all I could think of:

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

The Concert for Bangladesh was one of the most ambitious humanitarian efforts in rock music history. It produced an extraordinary contribution for UNICEF, exceeding $15 million

Hi Rebecca, I have to say that that doesn't seem like very much money to me. Private individuals gave $5.1 billion dollars recently for the tsunami relief effort, without any catchy rock concert. Heck, kids collecting for UNICEF at Halloween has raised $132 million. Not to mention that I have no idea what any funds raised by the Live Earth concerts would conceivably be used for. Hence the criticism up above from the Live Aid founder that it was an unfocused event.

I have to say that that doesn't seem like very much money to me

That was in 1971 and the first of its kind ot ever happen.

That was in 1971 and the first of its kind ot ever happen.

Thanks, Chindi.

Let's consider the dollar adjustment we have to make-- given the 40 years since the concert happened . . .

Yes... $15.1 million from 1971 is worth somewhere between $60 and $72 million today. That may be a lot in terms of rock concert philanthropy, but it is not a lot in terms of the amounts that charities routinely raise without the gimmicks.

Since when has raising money through a benefit concert become a "gimmick".?
When its a cause you don't like?
When its groups you don't like?

Charity balls, and concerts have gone on for a lot longer than 1971.

Oh, chindi, Madonna is in hot water for her guitar.

That's a false choice if ever there was one.

It is not as if the only way to address starvation, AIDS, or the lack of clean drinking water is by building coal-fired power plants.

No false choice at all. Any money spent on one thing can not be spent on another thing.

And who the hell was talking about coal-fired power plants?

It comes down to priorities. The World has real problems today that need to be addressed.

More:

Human-caused climate change deserves attention - and it has gotten it, thanks to Gore, Flannery, and others. Even before a single note has been played in the "awareness-raising" concerts, much of the developed world believes that global warming is the planet's biggest problem.

Yet, the world faces many other vast challenges. Whether we like it or not, we have limited money and a limited attention span for global causes. We should focus first on achieving the most good for the most people.

The Copenhagen Consensus project brought together top-class thinkers, including four Nobel Laureate economists, to examine what we could achieve with a $50 billion investment designed to "do good" for the planet. They examined the best research available and concluded that projects requiring a relatively small investment - getting micro-nutrients to those suffering from malnutrition, providing more resources for HIV-AIDS prevention, making a proper effort to get drinking water to those who lack it - would do far more good than the billions of dollars we could spend reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change.

Carbon reduction activists argue that focusing exclusively on climate change will bring many benefits. They point out, for example, that malaria deaths will climb along with temperatures, because potentially killer mosquitoes thrive in warmer areas. And they would be right. But it's not as simple as the bumper sticker slogan "Fight climate change and ward off malaria."

If America and Australia are somehow inspired by the Live Earth concerts to sign the Kyoto Protocol, temperatures would rise by slightly less. The number of people at risk of malaria would be reduced by about 0.2 percent by 2085. Yet the cost of the Kyoto Protocol would be a staggering $180 billion a year. In other words, climate change campaigners believe we should spend $180 billion to save just 1,000 lives a year.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

For much less money, we could save 850,000 lives each and every year. We know that dissemination of mosquito nets and malaria prevention programs could cut malaria incidence in half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually - less than 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto. The choice is stark.

For much less money, we could save 850,000 lives each and every year.

Be honest: do you want that money used for that, or too make the US stronger economically?

Since this is a WORLD problem, the money should come from the WORLD, not just the United States.

Also, more pressure should be put on China and India to pollute less.

Science Daily — Severe pollution from the Far East is almost certainly affecting the weather near you, says a Texas A&M University researcher who has studied the problem and has published a landmark paper on the topic in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Renyi Zhang, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M and lead author of the paper, says the study is the first of its kind that provides indisputable evidence that man-made pollution is adversely affecting the storm track over the Pacific Ocean, a major weather event in the northern hemisphere during winter. The project was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA.

Zhang says the culprit is easy to detect: pollution from industrial and power plants in China and India. Both countries have seen huge increases in their economies, which means more large factories and power plants to sustain such growth. All of these emit immense quantities of pollution -- much of it soot and sulfate aerosols -- into the atmosphere, which is carried by the prevailing winds over the Pacific Ocean and eventually worldwide.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070306101319.htm
--
China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html

For much less money, we could save 850,000 lives each and every year. We know that dissemination of mosquito nets and malaria prevention programs could cut malaria incidence in half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually - less than 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto. The choice is stark.

Hey, I have an idea for increasing revenue. We end the war in Iraq!

A recent article in the highly respected humanitarian UK journal The New Statesman quoted an estimate of the accrual cost (i.e. the long-term committed cost) of the Bush War on Terror at $2.5 TRILLION – and the estimate came from 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate US Professor Stiglitz (Columbia) and Professor Linda Bilmes (Harvard).

Bear in mind that the above figures date from March of 2007. I'm sure we can fix at least SOME of our global woes by redistributing those dollars. And with contributions from other countries? Ahh. We might actually see peace prevail on the planet and a renewed promise for humanity.

Since this is a WORLD problem, the money should come from the WORLD, not just the United States.

So we just do nothing because they won't?

If we do it and stop giving China all the breaks they are getting, we could put pressure on them.
I would think if you really cared you would be all for the concerts since they are raising awareness.

Rebecca,

Get with the times! The "Military-Industrial Complex" was long ago replaced by the "Entitlement Complex."

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich claimed that "our tax dollars right now are being spent overwhelmingly on war and military buildup." In fact, all defense spending amounts to just 23.6 percent of the budget, or about half what is spent on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/democratic_debate_part_3.html

The sad thing Dennis, is when US manufacturers outsourced their goods to lesser developed countries, the pollution per manufactured unit went up, as pollution standards in these countries was, and still is, much more lax than in the United States.

What has the UK been doing?

Are they on track to meet the first standard? It is my understanding that several EU countries are not meeting the standard....

Europe Fails Kyoto Standards as Trading Scheme Helps Polluters

By Mathew Carr and Saijel Kishan

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- When European Union officials created a market for trading pollution credits, they boasted it was a ``cost-conscious way'' to save the planet from global warming.

Five years later, the 25-nation EU is failing to meet the Kyoto Protocol's carbon-dioxide emission standards. Rather than help protect the environment, the trading system has led to increases in electricity prices of more than 50 percent and record profits for RWE AG and other utilities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awS1xfKpVRs8&refer=home

Dennis,

Re:Years ago America took the lead on creating this problem.

I take umbrage at this. US farming has fed the world for years. US medicine and industry has save countless lives. Yes, with all of that production, pollution comes with it. It is a small price to pay for saving those lives.

Thanks.

But Kyoto, at a minimum would be a good start, and give us the moral authority to start putting pressure on major emissions producers like China and India.

Economic pressure would have far more quicker results than "moral authority." China dictators don't bow to "Moral Authority." But what to do? I don't like the idea of a tariff and a resulting trade war.

India, which has 86% of its population living under $2 per day(1), is not going to stop polluting and sacrifice economic growth regardless of what we do.

(1) http://cee45q.stanford.edu/2003/briefing_book/india.html#s2.3

Dennis, all the "moral stature" that would be gained by the US signing onto Kyoto isn't going to have an effect one way or the other on what China and India choose to do. Gore makes the same arguments but these nations, just like all nations, are going to weigh going along with such standards against their desire for the type of economic growth that will raise living standards. If a compromise can be reached that would be great but I see little evidence to support this so far in China and India but the Chinese are making some halting steps in the right direction.

I don't want to try and steer this discussion away from the topic at hand but over the short term one of the word's greatest challenges is going to be able to assure adequate supplies of drinking water to a growing, increasingly urbanized global population. As a green conservative, I'm proud to say that my county of Arlington, VA has taken sensible steps in this regard. By using low-flow toilets and showers and energy-efficient light bulbs and utilizing mass transit, everyone can make a difference.

We can reduce pollution worldwide without signing the Kyoto Agreement. Like everything else in politics, Kyoto has become a symbol and very restrictive. Also, we both agree that many nations are not living up to it.

Good News: In his speech on Thursday, the US president said he wanted the group of leading polluters, including the US, China, India and major European countries, to come up with a global target for carbon emissions but decide themselves how to reach that target.

On a visit to Finland, the EU Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, said the new statement was a major step in the right direction, representing "a completely new approach" for Mr Bush.

"For me, it's very welcome and groundbreaking news," he said.

He added that it was particularly important for the Group of Eight countries meeting next week.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=862312007

What he has done in past weeks, culminating with the Group of Eight summit earlier this month in Germany, is move the world past the failed Kyoto Protocol and bring the fastest-growing polluters (including China and India) into climate negotiations. In the process, he has laid the groundwork for a dramatic improvement in U.S.-European relations.

The backdrop for this is that the U.S., through the power of its capital markets, its economic scale and innovative dynamism, is leapfrogging Europe in alternative-fuel technologies. This is happening due to what U.S. energy expert Daniel Yergin calls "a great bubbling" of new investments and capabilities.

After years of blaming Americans for destroying the planet, Europeans will have to get accustomed to a dramatically changed U.S. political and economic climate.[...]

What the G-8 agreement did was effectively kill the bankrupt Kyoto concept without making Europeans admit it had failed.

The conceit was that high-minded Europeans would set an example that the rest of the world would follow. Other countries didn't join because the cost to their own development and growth was too high. Europe, in turn, lost credibility by missing targets so dramatically that it won't hit more than a quarter of Kyoto's goals by 2012.

European officials complained that Bush sideswiped their efforts at the G-8 to get agreement for emissions reductions of 50 percent by 2050. He did so partly through a pre-emptive strike in a speech where he called for new talks involving the world's 15 top polluters, who are responsible for more than 80 percent of greenhouse gases.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/113214.htm

Insofar as carbon emissions from autos are concerned, higher gasoline prices will have more of an effect in this respect than all the jaw-boning, etc. in the world. Even Detroit seems to be coming around faced with a losing product line.

For The Observer:

Since this is a WORLD problem, the money should come from the WORLD, not just the United States.
So we just do nothing because they won't?

If we do it and stop giving China all the breaks they are getting, we could put pressure on them.
I would think if you really cared you would be all for the concerts since they are raising awareness.

Why can't you answer the question?

Since this is a WORLD problem, the money should come from the WORLD, not just the United States.

Hey! I have an idea! How about nations pay a proportional amount - if 90% of the pollution in the world has been caused, up til now, by Nation A, then Nation A can foot 90% of the bill to clean it up. Fair is fair, right?

A while back I was skeptical of global warming. Now however I firmly believe it's happening. And looking at all the projections, I wonder what can be done about it. Kyoto is a joke. 12.5%? How is that a goal? The goal needs to be near 90% in the very short term, or else we have to admit that emissions reduction will not be in time to stop all the worst predictions of current models. One issue I would like to see explored more is there are other, better ways to reduce global warming than simply emissions reduction. Because emissions reduction, while worth doing on its own, simply cannot prevent global warming.

Hey, Hamid. We must have been posting our remarks at the same time and using the same logic.

Hear, hear, friend.

Great Minds think alike, Rebecca.

Hey, I was going to say that, too!

:-O

One can expect individuals to not pollute the air with their Gulfstreams.

True - the event will hardly make a dent.

I would be wary of statements like "the opposition really has no arguments" and "the fiercest fight against the reality of global warming are those whose sole motive is greed".

I'm no global warming expert, nor am I commenting in this thread to bash global warming, so I'll leave that position unaddressed.

I will point out that there is a great deal of money to be made and power to be had by hyping up global warming and not all of the "leaders" of environmental issues do so altruistically. When movements such as this one get going full force, you are pretty much guaranteed to start hearing propaganda implied to be science.

And 8 x 10 glossy photographs!!

Points for whoever gets the reference.

Triple points for anyone under 30 who does.

10X points for anyone under 21

:)

Hey, gotta laugh sometime here.

Points for whoever gets the reference.

Alice's restaurant.

Ching Ching for Chindi!

:)

I will point out that there is a great deal of money to be made and power to be had by hyping up global warming

As opposed to the great deal of money made by denying it? I don't think the ridiculously low CAFE standards have really caused the automative (or oil) industries to exactly suffer for profits....

It's just that usually I hear the "oh, it's just one SUV and I don't drive it that much and it won't make that much difference" type of comment from the far right side of the spectrum.

Interesting remark from the occasional SUV driver. Can't say that I've ever heard that rationale before, Ardith. I don't know about you but where I live in the South, the SUVs are out daily and in full force. At times, I'm surrounded by them in traffic and on the highway.

I find it hard to believe that these gas-guzzlers are only being taken out by "Sunday" drivers -- those who otherwise restrict their means of transportation to Hondas and Priuses, say.

And 8 x 10 glossy photographs!!

With circles and arrows on the back of each one of them?

And there are numerous books and papers out there not debunking global warming,

Most bought and paid for by the people who brought you the Iraq War.

...sorry bob, but I think the neo-cons are rooting for the world carbon tax, they are after all a part of the globalist agenda.

OK, let's presume global warming is not at all man made. So what? The environment is still screwed, and our fellow mankind is suffering for it, not to mention the rest of the natural world who, lets face it, would hardly call the present situation a golden age for healthy biodiversity. It is pretty self-evident that man is adversely affecting localised environments - anyone who says otherwise has never seen a pit mine - and the globe is nothing but a bunch of local environments put together. We should do something about it, and stop pretending this really has anything to do, at the end of the day, with Al Gore or overpaid musicians. Because it doesn't.

And from Montana one more :

n Montana, it was even too hot to fish.

Yellowstone National Park and state fisheries managers asked anglers starting Saturday not to fish on some Montana rivers between noon and 6 p.m. due to drought and scorching weather. Water temperatures in some lower-elevation rivers have reached 73 degrees in recent days, conditions that can stress and even kill fish, the National Park Service said Friday.

It was really cold in Australia though... explain that one.

My attempt at humor is lost...

Feel free to collapse.

Haha... nice. Your humor is better than my own.

Same with those Dems.

interesting but as a climate change beliver i must ask you to refrain from comments liek this as it sets a dangerous president. While the two are interwoven, weather does NOT equal climate. What you have hear is a couple climate data points is all and not enough of those data points to make any sort of conclusion, educated or not. And while with global warming,m you can expect more and more records like this, the danger of attributing it to global warming, is if there is a drop in temp in the current weather the naysayers as they do will point out that it disproves global warming.
And as long as some place, some where on the planet exibits a record cold, they will drill that into your head as if it represents the entire reality of climate change science, when all they have is a data point as well.

To be a bit more accurate try to show trends rather than specific temps..as climate is trends of weather

i must ask you to refrain from comments liek this as it sets a dangerous president.

I think we already have a dangerous president . . .

:-]

EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey (Reuters) - The Live Earth global pop concerts on Saturday broke a record for an online entertainment show by generating more than 9 million Internet streams, Microsoft Corp. Web portal MSN said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070707/wr_nm/concert_media_dc_1

Live Earth was a propaganda event

Yes, for the flagging careers of many musicians! :)

As opposed to all the other concerts they put on?
Even if an artist was out to boost record sales by bringing awareness to global warming, and aligning themselves with that cause, that's fine by me.

Tell me Oberver, what do you think of all those bands who play in support of our troops? In support of American patriotism?

Saving the environment is patriotic.

Jimmy,

I seen these shows before. The problems will remain.

Farm Aid didn't save the farmers. Band Aid did not save Africa.

Structural changes have to be made. The worldwide promotion of Democracy would help in this arena.

Chinese leaders need not worry about pollution, because they do not have to be loyal to constituient citizens against pollution. They do not have to worry about re-election.

Africa could benefit from the removal of corrupt despots, such as Mugabe and others.

"£220bn stolen by Nigeria's corrupt rulers

By David Blair in Abuja
Last Updated: 12:17am BST 26/06/2005

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in his drive to help Africa was laid bare yesterday when it emerged that Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion.

That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent.

Gen Sani Abacha
Former leader Gen Sani Abacha stole between £1bn and £3bn

The figures, compiled by Nigeria's anti-corruption commission, provide dramatic evidence of the problems facing next month's summit in Gleneagles of the G8 group of wealthy countries which are under pressure to approve a programme of debt relief for Africa.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, has spoken of a new Marshall Plan for Africa. But Nigeria's rulers have already pocketed the equivalent of six Marshall Plans. After that mass theft, two thirds of the country's 130 million people - one in seven of the total African population - live in abject poverty, a third is illiterate and 40 per cent have no safe water supply."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/25/wnig25.xml

So bury your head in the sand because we don't have a solution? Is that the plan?

We have to "increase awareness" of corruption by African dictators.

We have to "increase awareness" of corruption by African dictators.

And what does that have to do with the pollution from China?
So instead we just add to the pollution and ignore AIDS?

The sad fact is that capitalism is based on growth at the expense of the natural world. Now that we are 6.5 Billion. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Does this mean I want to live under communism ? Absolutely not.

Interesting question, why is it that humanity is not part of the natural world?

From my study of biology each species expands until there is some barrier to that expansion. This is true whether it is an aeomeba, or an Elephant, or chickens for that matter. There is a level of self hatred to me in pronouncements like this as well as the hyperbole that Bob is famous for.

Humans are part of the natural world, it's the works of humans that are the problem.

Watch a drag line strip over burden in Wyoming, and tell me that's "natural".

It's no less natural than the San Andreas fault. Yes the strip mine is natural because one of the agents of nature, namely humans, did it. Removing that overburden is far less damaging to the environment that those pesky asteroids that whack the Earth.

So the works of Beavers is ok because it is the work of Beavers?

The works of Locusts are ok because it is the work of Locusts?

That natural uranium reactor in southern Africa was ok because it was natural and the reactor built by the Russians at Chernobyl was not?

So the works of Beavers is ok because it is the work of Beavers?

Yeah, something tells me if Beavers had bulldozers we wouldn't be cracking wise about them.

Scientists still do not agree that humans have caused global warming...

When I read that I understood it was pointless to continue to read. Go and get a few more braincells will you? For the sake of the world stop spreading stupidity and lies around yourself.

RobertC?

It is always interesting that the lefty communists are quite willing to excuse extreme air pollution in China, the death of millions of starving children in Africa and the growing lack of water resources worldwide, in favour of reducing carbon dioxide emissions which comprise just 5% of total greenhouse gases.

Can you back up this contention with some facts? I don't believe I've ever heard a "lefty" say, "Ah, to h*ll with the starving children in Africa. I wanna fix global warming INSTEAD. So there!"

By the way, "lefty communists" as opposed to "righty communists"?

Just asking.

Rebecca,

Are you a Communist?

Just asking.

And that's OK.

Actually, Socialism is OK. In small doses.

Signed,
Your Capitalistic Pig Friend
The Observer

Nope. Sorry to disappoint but I'm not a Communist, Observer. I'm a Socialist. You know, a proponent of all those seditious ideas like universal healthcare and a living wage for workers.

:-O

Socialist policies are a disgusting waste of tax payers money.

yikes, try reading the U.S. Constitution why don't ya.

I'm not disappointed, Rebecca-just asking...

However, I do believe people's political beliefs stem from a few basic core beliefs.

BTW, I'm a JFK Liberal .In my core beliefs, I believe America is a great country.

I believe in your core beliefs, you think America is a bad country.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

BTW, how about a living wage guaranteed for all starting business owners?

I'm correcting you, Observer.

I believe in your core beliefs, you think America is a bad country.

That is a terrible accusation, Observer and I'd ask you to back it up with some hard core evidence.

It's true that I'm not happy with the way things are going in America today. And I believe you and I once engaged in a discussion during which I pointed out the racial inequities of our current judicial system. You asserted that you were astounded that a person could find her- or himself in jail and NOT be guilty.

However, I love America and the principles on which it was founded. My loyalties do not reside with the leaders of our country. Leaders come and go and many of them fail to uphold the original tenets established by those who broke with King George to found our nation. I am certainly not a fan of the current Administration which is responsible for shredding, in large part, the Constitution. In my opinion, Bush et al are some of the most unpatriotic Americans among us.

Where would our country be today if our Founding Fathers never bothered to question authority?

I frankly don't believe you when you say that you're a liberal of the JFK-stripe. You come off sounding more like a Joe McCarthy.

That is a terrible accusation, Observer and I'd ask you to back it up with some hard core evidence

I am starting to realize that is part of the con game he is running.

Rebecca,

I immediately asked you to correct me if I was wrong and you did.

However, if someone criticized America in virtually every post, it would not give me reason to think they thought America was a good country.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
--

You asserted that you were astounded that a person could find her- or himself in jail and NOT be guilty.

I am not astounded, but I do believe that it is impossible to avoid totally, and I do believe it is rare. However, it is hard to prove to what extent it occurs.

However, I love America and the principles on which it was founded.

It was not founded on "those seditious ideas like universal healthcare and a living wage for workers."

It was not founded on "those seditious ideas like universal healthcare and a living wage for workers."

When did those become seditious ideas ?

...I know we're getting a little off topic but I like to let people know about the alternatives to socialized health care, and the most articulate debate for a free market economy as opposed to a single payer plan comes from a doctor and a congressman, Ron Paul, 15 minutes with his views on nuclear power at the end. Just to point out there is that relevance to this thread topic.

chAng

You certainly like to bring the topic around to Ron Paul.. Getting a check?

When did those become seditious ideas ?

When you've lived with universal healthcare in the UK your whole life you quickly realise it's worse than seditious. But if you like to wait in line for 6 months for second-rate care, I'm sure there are plenty of nation-states in Europe that'll be glad to see your custom.

...No Schnoo, but we were discussing this on another thread where I linked this video too, sorry if the redundancy got to ya.

...I've been studying constitutional law and then Paul comes along and explains some of the nuances pretty gracefully. This is going to be my first voting experience and I feel lucky I have such a constitutionalist candidate to choose, in one of the two main parties nonetheless.

...Micheal Moore's movie or Al Gore's, which was the biggest propaganda piece?They probably both had CFR ghost writers.

However, if someone criticized America in virtually every post, it would not give me reason to think they thought America was a good country.

Again, Observer. You're missing the point. And you haven't been paying attention. Today's America is NOT a good country. Then again, it's really not America anymore. It's an Orwellian distortion. I assume you've read 1984. If not, it's a worthwhile read. However, you're cheating yourself if you believe that it pertains solely to Stalinist Russia. Like all great art, the novel transcends time and place and its message can be interpreted in a universal and timeless context.

I can hear you now. You're in Germany. It's 1938. 1939. You're telling your compatriots that they hate Germany because they oppose Adolph Hitler.

Good luck. I believe America is much bigger than you give it credit for being and has an unlimited potential for greatness -- unlike your stunted version.

I'm not really interested in pursuing your limited line of reasoning. You give off bad vibes, friend.

If I may interject Rebecca, I'm a big fan of the Orwell books, but are you implying by comparing the totalitarian society in 1984 to an American republic, despite the abuse of the executive branch, the complacency of congress, and whatever it is that's happened to our supreme court judges, that we might as well adopt socialist programs and essentially be wards of the state? Sounds like a "cop out" to me.

If I may interject Rebecca, I'm a big fan of the Orwell books, but are you implying by comparing the totalitarian society in 1984 to an American republic, despite the abuse of the executive branch, the complacency of congress, and whatever it is that's happened to our supreme court judges, that we might as well adopt socialist programs and essentially be wards of the state? Sounds like a "cop out" to me.

Then think again. You don't understand Orwell obviously.

By the way, chAng:

Because I support universal healthcare and a living wage does NOT mean that I condone the members of our nation becoming wards of the state, as you so simplistically put it. Think again. And please, think hard and long.

A living wage simply means that workers receive wages so that they can support themselves and their families. They are not "wards of the state." They're making contributions. But why should anyone have to work two or three jobs merely to survive? The minimum wage @ 7.50/hr leaves hardworking people with an annual salary of $14,4000/annually. Who in America can possibly survive on that??

...oh Rebecca, sugar coated socialism is still socialism. Just because you don't like capitalism doesn't mean you have to go to the other side of the spectrum.

...The reason why people need two or three jobs to survive is we've let big industry and big government walk all over the middle class, and our government borrows billions a day and the fed prints billions without congressional oversight and the value of our money goes down and prices go up.

...As little federal government as possible and no corporate welfare, plus not spending billions on wars we can't afford are real constitutional solutions, I don't see why we would do otherwise.

...I'm not going to debate you on my knowledge of Orwell but I'd suggest Huxley as a great read too.

Yep, I've read Huxley, too. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rebecca:

A living wage simply means that workers receive wages so that they can support themselves and their families

Maybe people shouldn't have families until they are able to support them.

"If you can't feed them, don't breed them!"

...I've been studying constitutional law and then Paul comes along and explains some of the nuances pretty gracefully. This is going to be my first voting experience and I feel lucky I have such a constitutionalist candidate to choose, in one of the two main parties nonetheless.

You are not going to have Ron Paul as a choice. While he is doing well online, in real life he's polling at like 3% in the Republican Party, and in most states it's only registered Republicans who get to vote in the Republican primary. If he doesn't win the primary process, he doesn't get presented to the public at large as a choice. Which is a shame really. Maybe the parties should go back to picking their candidates in the backs of smoky rooms instead of through the primary process.

I will be voting for him in the primary and hope your super soothsayer powers are incorrect. Why not vote for the best candidate?

Maybe people shouldn't have families until they are able to support them.

"If you can't feed them, don't breed them!"

Ouch, Observer! That doesn't sound like a JFK liberal to me. I suppose you're in favor of mandatory sterilization, too? Wow, you must really HATE Americans.

However, let's assume that someone heeds your advice. She is single, works a 40 hour week and receives $7.50/hour. She's a hard worker. In fact, she exemplifies the American work ethic. You'd be proud of her.

Unfortunately, her company doesn't provide her with health insurance (very few of those low-paying jobs come with benefits).

She goes without health insurance. In the course of 12 months, she makes a few visits to the doctor, discovers that she has a condition that requires minor surgery, may even end up in the ER -- a visit that costs her, as it did my uninsured sister, four thousand dollars. So -- wait a minute -- let's deduct medical expenses which run about (I'm lowballing here) $8K.

Tell me, could YOU live comfortably on an income of $6,000 per annum these days? Or even, given a healthy year, $14K?

No caveats, no "buts", no ad hominem remarks. Just yes or no. And, if yes, supply me with a list of how your expenditures would roll out.

You see, you haven't been providing me with any facts. It's time for you to roll up your sleeves, man, and put your money where your opinions are.

PS Dennis, I promise that this will be my last threadjack. Thanks.

No, I am for personal responsibility AND THE RELIGIOUS USE OF BIRTH CONTROL.

Your example of $7.50 per hour is quite low. The "Evil" Wal-Mart down the street is paying $10/hr PLUS health insurance!

People SHOULD ONLY BRING A CHILD INTO THE WORLD IFf they can support that child with AT LEAST its basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) plus emotional love and support.

People have a SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

BTW, you did request no ad hominem remarks AFTER you suggested I was in favor of mandatory sterilization (I am not) and a remark that I must really HATE Americans.

This is uncalled for and unnecessary.

Now, getting back to my ORIGINAL STATEMENT: "Maybe people shouldn't have families until they are able to support them."

DO YOU THINK people SHOULD have families before they are able to support them?

This is uncalled for and unnecessary.

Payback's a @!$%#, isn't it?
You make those types of comments on a regular basis

People have a SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY to prevent unwanted pregnancy. BTW, you did request no ad hominem remarks AFTER you suggested I was in favor of mandatory sterilization (I am not) and a remark that I must really HATE Americans.

This is uncalled for and unnecessary.

Hey, I'm only playing your game, Observer. You're the one who told me that I don't like America.

Tit for tat.

There still isn't 100% consensus that HIV comes from AIDS.

Well, to be fair, there isn't 100% consensus that Dubya is human, or that Al Gore isn't Steve Jobs in his spare skinsuit.

There still isn't 100% consensus that HIV comes from AIDS. It might still come from being gay. After all, there are more openly gay people than ever.

You've got it all wrong. You see, it's from microwave ovens. We didn't used to have any microwaves, and there was no AIDS. Now we have microwave ovens, and there's AIDS. Clear enough?

j/k

I knew a girl who got pregnant from swimming in a public pool and a guy who got crabs from a doorknob. Or so he claimed.

If I ever get AIDS, I'm gonna say it was from using a basketball needle.

RobertC, you're spot on the money. SimonL has no factual information upon which to draw, he's just hopeful that what Al Gore says is actually gospel. He's what I'd term an envirofascist - stifling debate on the climate change issue. But I'd be better careful with that one, apparently, Benno Hansen says I'm a name-caller for daring to infer that SimonL is an envirofascist.

...A horrifically bias opinion article comparing human contribution of global warming deniers to holocaust deniers, and how environmentalists are becoming dogmatic like a religion.

...and Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming via the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The fact that prominent scientists have reversed their opinions shows the dynamic nature of science and that the debate is never over, despite the views of extremist environmentalists and certain factions of the media.

Indeed, the logical extent of this alarmism is that mankind is taken back to the stone age while global warming and temperature increases continue unabated. But of course, by then, Al Gore will be dead and won't be accountable.

...and Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming via the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

This fur ball got coughed up here a few weeks ago. It's from that apex of moronia Senator James Inhofe, who gave a speech in the Senate in the spring of 2006 attacking Climate Change as hundreds of thousands of acres of his home state burned. Due to record heat and drought. It was called the Amarillo Complex fire. It burnt 1,400 square miles of Texas and Oklahoma. Several dead, dozens of structures burnt.