I dunno a big concert like that sounds bad for the environment.
36 responses Add your response
I am watching this right now, so far no Political crap from the bands, a bunch of short films but on DVR I blow right by them avoiding attempted indoctornation. This isnt going to change anything, those who believe will still believe, those who dont wont but hopefully it will be a good concert...too eary to tell. In the end I think these short films and messages about so called Global Warming will be nothing more than an "Inconvenient Interuption".
Some of us long-haired, vegan, organic cotton wearing, tree huggers have the silly notion that doing something/anything might just inspire our fellow jaded, knuckle scrapping brethren to walk upright for a change and try to care, just a little bit more about this hurtling dust ball we share. It sucks to take on any personal responsibility, I know, and it's so much easier to take cheap pot-shots at others. Sorry for bugging you with being so optimistic, idealistic, and naive. That said, I agree with Zappa as well. :^)
I like the T-Shirts one band was wearing that stated something like "Say no to Nuclear Power".
Let's examine the disconnect in this purely political movement.
Okay, you're fighting greenhouse gases, but you all flew to your venue on commercial or private aircraft. You're against nuclear power though it emits virtually no greenhouse gases.
Yep, makes sense to me!
And please, no talk about the dangers of nuclear power. How many Americans died in the last decade from Nuclear Power accidents? NONE.
But how many coal miners died digging coal in the Americas?
Gimme a break with the environmental politics.
But what if they're right? The near unanimous consensus of scientists who read the evidence as clearly showing that our planet is in big trouble due to humanly created pollution? Of course not ALL scientiss agree that this problem is humanly created, but the VAST OVEWHELMING MAJORITY do. ALL scientific projections regarding the future involve statements of PROBABLITIES rather than absolute certainties; and science thrives on debate and skepticism. But at what probablity point do you environmentalist bashers think it MIGHT be worth doing something -- especially when the stakes are as high as the scientific community is convinced that they are? Would absolute 100% certainty and agreement of all be required to be worth getting concerned? 90%? 50? Even if there is only a 20% chance that this majority of scientists are right, might it not be worth being concerned?
It is true that concerns about the enviornment have been taken more to heart by liberals than conservatives -- and we all tend to take on the positions of those we like and to disdain the positions of those we dilike. But should political beliefs let us ignore a scientific near-consensus when the CONSEQUENCES involved are this high?
The probablity of a terrorist attack, and the level of agreement among those who spend their lives trying to predict such things, is MUCH lower than that of the environmental calamities predicted by the scientific community. And although such possible future attackes would indeed by tragic, this would pale in comparison to even the mildest projections of the scientific community regarding global warming. Yet many of us are VERY worried about this problem and willing to take action -- on both sides of the political divide.
Should political ideology lead us to ignore this problem? Again, at what point of certainty should we take this problem seriously?
I normally prefer these threads to focus on music, but since so many anti-environmentalist have used this forum to express their views, I just have to ask -- what if the near-consensus of scientists (and, yes, most liberals, but also many conservatives) is right?
Chad -- Yes, there are a small minority of scientists who disagree (most of whom are funded by the energy industry or by the current administration), but that is a TINY minority. Yes, if you listen to Rush, Coulter, and others, you might get the impression that there is nothing to worry abou and that those who are concerned about this are crazy evil people. Do you really believe that it is a MINORITY of scientists who believe that our planet is in dire trouble, due to humanly created pollution? I've never heard anyone claim that the majority of the scientific community doesn't believe in humanly caused global warming before; although I do acknowledge that the consensus is not at 100 it is getting close to that and is certainly a clear and overwhelming majoirty (more than half).
No one is promoting certain death -- the goal of environmentalists is to AVOID THAT.
Again, my question is, given the large majority -- that most environmental scientists refer to as a NEAR-CONSENSUS -- why not take action? If they are wrong and we try to clean things up, we end up with cleaner air and less dependence on oil from the Middle East (meaning less money going into the coffers of those who don't like us very much). If they are right that the planet is in trouble, and we ignore them, where does that leave us? Given the possible consequences, how likely does it have to be that nasty things will happen before it is worth taking this issue seriously. If it is even somewhat (or even remotely possible) that the majority of scientists are right about the climate issue, isn't it worth trying to do something, given the potential costs?
Please help me understand why anyone would not be concerned about a potentially tragic turn of events -- even if it is not and absolute certanity and merely MIGHT happen.
So, the climatologists who disagree are "mostly funded by the energy industry". So that means they must be wrong.
And some of the guys who are so CERTAIN what the future will bring are the same guys who can't predict the weather accurately 7 days out.
Look, I'm not being negative about people caring. I care, and I'm environmentally conscious as well. But what we are seeing these days looks very nearly RELIGIOUS in it's zealotry. And just because the majority of "scientists" agree on this doesn't mean they have the answer. Google "Eugenics" and get back to me. Nearly every eminent scientist, politician and celebrity of the age endorsed it as scientific fact- including Adolf Hitler.
Forget liberal or conservative- look at this movement with open eyes and healthy skepticism. Carbon credits are paid to the company Al Gore is a member of. Incentive for the movement? Well as the old saying always goes, "follow the money".
Yet these people- again with a near-religious zealotry- abhor nuclear power as some great evil. Nuclear power can do more to reduce CO2 than nearly anything we can do. Yeah, there's waste. It can be dealt with if you drop the hysterics and deal rationally with the issue.
Other alternatives to fossil fuels suck. Wind power is very inefficient and kills thousands of birds. Wind Farms have been referred to as "The Cuisanarts of the Air" by The Sierra Club- no conservative organization by any means. Solar power sounds great, but is best used on a personal basis, not for grid power. And think about the caustic battery storage systems required to store solar energy. Not too green there.
So it's great to have a cause. But don't say the I am the knuckle dragger with the closed mind. When any group of people tell you "the debate is over", it's time to be very afraid.
Time to re-read George Orwell.
OK, I get the whole global warming thing, and I get Al Gore needing something to do, but do they need to tell us things that are just not true. Is this the best way to get us to become believers in Big Al's presidential (unannounced) campaign.
Look, I just watched the concert in Antarctica, and I need some help here. The band was standing in the snow, singing and playing with a beautiful sun hanging on the horizon. Mind you they had no sign of breath coming from their mouth, and should there not be? Oh yea, BTW we are now two weeks beyond the summer solstice, or the shortest days in Antarctica.
Hmmm, how is it the sun is up???
Look, I think this is fine, but really, isn't this just Al getting on TV?
from corn it takes 120 gallons of gas to produce 100 gallons of ethanol that lowers the power and milage of gas.
brazil uses ethanol, but they use it from sugar cane sources. Mid west farmers don't like that cause it only grows in humid warm climates like Louisiana
ethanol from sugar cane - 80 gallons to make 100 of ethanol
get the facts, don't believe the lies
Hey, Eugenics is not a fact; it is a policy based on a fact about which all agree: selective breeding changes(and can thus "improve" characteristics of populations. But it's immoral in a big way as done on humans.
The scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement about global warming as a great threat to the stability of our habitat. That doesn't mean they have solutions. But one good shot at a solution is to stop doing what apparently causes the phenomenon that seems so dangerous. I mean, duh.
To say Al Gore is on about this because he's bored, and to act like that discredits what he says, is a stupendously cynical ad hominem. Al Gore didn't make up the evidence, nor did the huge group of internationally prominent scientists who agreed unanimously that global warming is a fact and a scary one about which we should do something.
Besides, if the question is whose motives in characterizing the evidence and assessing the risk are more suspect, the answer is completely clear: big industry, oil, and the politicians they keep in office (and in their pockets), as well as the rich whose rich lives these make possible. Not Al Gore and a bunch of lab guys.
Oh also, the fact that it is hard to predict the weather 7 days in advance is NO INDICATION you can't predict long term trends. Lots of systems, maybe most, are just like that. The problem with the weather is that we happen to care a lot about a temporal range of it within which it is seems pretty stochastic.
It's ime to work on real solutions instead of just denying the problem. One preliminary step is getting out from under the influence of people in power (real or nominal political) who deny the problem.
Well, agreed, Eugenics was not/is not fact. Neither is human caused global warming- it is a commonly accepted theory.
That's how the Scientific Method works. And to say my argument about weather prediciton is short sighted is to miss the point.
Fact is, the data from which global warming trends are extrapolated is sometimes suspect. Do I agree that these scientists are doing the best they can with what they have? Absolutely. Do I think the hand-wringing is premature? Absolutely.
One more thing- directed to Rnm4. When you accuse someone of "denying" global warming or lump these folks into the category of "global warming deniers", some may find that very offensive. Such descriptions of people who are justifiably skeptical of some of the science you readily accept cloaks them in the same moral garb as "Holocaust deniers".
The two are not remotely alike, and you may want to choose your descriptions carefully. How about "human caused global warming skeptic"? Not as pretty or cutting a sound bite, but far more accurate.
Audiotomb brings up an aspect of the push for environmental awareness that drives me crazy too. His example of efficient vs. inefficient ethanol production is spot on. Everyone is clamoring so hard for economic advantage and a share of the pork pie that policy makers quickly lose sight of scientific reality. The path Washington is advocating isn't going to do anything but drive up food costs and appease the agricultural lobbies. Even efficient methanol production with sugar cane is fraught with indirect costs, just look at the environmental mess big sugar has made of the everglades ecosystem. I'm a member of the Sierra Club because I feel legislative bodies need balanced lobbying, but half of what they advocate is pie in the sky and a denial of reality IMO. I suspect one aspect of the environmental movement that drives a lot of us crazy is the "I want my cake and eat it too" attitude, the refusal to recognize that nothing is free and that every choice has consequences. The great landscape photographer Ansel Adams advocated nuclear energy for years to the chagrin of his fellow Sierra club members. He was adamant that you had to accept that if we wanted to have electricity in abundance and reduced emissions, nuclear power was the best balance of benefit and risk. Unless something has gotten by me, France and England have used nuclear power without any Chernobyls or Three Mile Islands.
Another example is environmental groups refusal to consider diesel engine technology because they don't want to trade the problems of CO2 and low fuel mileage for the problem of increased particulates. European car makers have pretty well killed that objection in the last few years with new technologies, but the Sierra Club still carries on it's harangue against diesel engines.
If environmental advocacy would accept that every technology carries risks and rewards and the real course forward is to find the best compromise instead of holding out for the perfect solution (which will never arrive,) we might make some headway towards real progress.
Scientists are not, I repeat NOT in in overwhelming agreement about global warming. In fact it is split about 50%-50%. I just heard a clip on the radio yesterday about core samples they took from Greenland and discovered bugs and things in the ice cap from the last "global warming period". There is confirmed scientific fact that all the planets in the solar system have warmed up the same amount as the earth has due to increased solar activity. 1970 it was global cooling on the front cover of TIME magazine and the coming ice age. I am in Minnesota, and 10,000 years ago we were a mile thick glacier. Did man do that too? Dupes. Read a book or two that refutes global warming before "making" your decision. This is just socialism advocating it's cause.
You are confused, making a simple category mistake. The relevant distinction is not between theory and fact, but between truth evaluable a proposition and a policy. Eugenics is a policy, like integration and space exploration. Global warming is a proposition: that the Earth is warming at a potentially dangerous rate due to human caused factors like dramatically increased carbon emissions. That claim may be true or false. Eugeneics is neither true nor false; it is either going on or not.
There is no theory/fact dichotomy. It may be your theories that there are three beers in your fridge and Oswald acted alone. Either may be true, either may be false. If they are true, they are facts, despite being theories. Einstein's special relativity theory is a theory, which may be true, and state facts. The theory of evolution is also a theory, and damn near every working biological scientist holds it. "Creationism" is also a theory, which almost no biologists respected outside of religious communitiies accepts. They are both theories. At most one states a fact. But it is no criticism of a claim to call it a theory, since even the best, most confirmed, useful, universally accepted theories are still theories --which may or may not be facts.
Global warming is either a fact or not, but it is a very widely held theory by independent and unbiased -- i.e., not in oil companies pockets-- scientists. But it is certainly a theory. Eugenics is noit a theory or a fact, and it is not anymore much practiced by humans on humans.
Zilla-- I am no expert on whether Glogal warming is actually occuring and alarming and all that. Indeed, I've been skeptical for a long time. But the evidence based on deep core ice samples from Antarctica Gore presents in the first half hour of his documentary is pretty compelling, going back way longer than the whole series of relative local coolings and warmings that have occurred since Homo Sapiens first appeared. If his evidence is at all good, whether or not we are causing these changes, we have never been around for anything like them. It has been consistent through all of this time that those making profits never accepted claims that they were doing so at the cost of the general good.
The resonance"deniers" makes with holocaust discourse is not unintentional; the cases are not identical, but that doesn't mean the resonances shouldn't be pointed up. Al Goreis no socialist(at least not in any sense in which a vast majority of Americans are not). And "socialist" is no epithetor anything like a univocal "cause". It represents a wide range of policy options recognizing the fact that private ownership of the means of productiion is not in all cases conducive to the public weal or justice. Free market uber alles is an unsubtle "doctrine", dead everywhere, and understandably, its advocates are defensive.
While you may think I'm confused, I think you are incorrect.
I appreciate the difference between policy and theory. Eugenics, as espoused in the early 2oth century, was both. The THEORY was that selective breeding could produce progressively superior human stock. Every undesirable trait in humans could be bred out, desirable traits bred in. The POLICY was, well, the justification for involuntary sterilization and later the genocide of homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, and ultimately, Jews of any description whatsoever.
Disagree with me on that if you will, I respect that.
What I find offensive however, is this statement of yours:
"The resonance"deniers" makes with holocaust discourse is not unintentional; the cases are not identical, but that doesn't mean the resonances shouldn't be pointed up".
At the risk of sounding rude, I have to ask you if you have any idea what you're talking about?
There is absolutely no relevance between the two issues, and if you find any resonances whatsoever you need to learn considerably more about the Holocaust. The fact that you make the comparison intentionally is stunning, and franky proves my point regarding the near religious zealotry of this movement. To equate people like me with those who deny the Holocaust is arrogant and insensitive.
You are falling in with a dangerous lot: people who question the morals and intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
I'm neither immoral or unintelligent: I am a believer that the human contribution to global warming is MUCH less than many scientists currently believe it is.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I wrote a careful reply to this site in response to Danlib1 this AM, but, for whatever reason, it didn't make it to posting. Whatever. Suffice it to say, theories can be facts, Global warming=doubting is not the same as holocaust-denying, and only time will tell if those who doubt globa, warming are actually doing as much of a dusservice as those who doubted reports of atrocities coming out of Nazi held land in 1943.
It doesn't matter what Al Gore III did. As long as he believes mankind is the cause of planetary climate change he can still worship at the altar of this movement. All will be forgiven.
Oh, and don't forget- anything you do is not your fault anymore anyway...you just claim you have a disease and you're going to celebrity rehab!
Too bad Al and Tipper's earlier cause- record content warning labels- wasn't quite enough to keep little AGIII on the straight and narrow.
It is my understanding that most folks ( scientist, politicians, joe-sixers) believe that there is global warming. However, the dispute is over the causes of this. And on that point there is absolutely no consensus no matter what anyone tells you. Oh, there are groups all around that just know their theory is correct.
It is interesting that Mr. Gore refuses to debate this with anyone, going so far as to insist that there is no one with a dissenting opinion allowed to speak at any of his appearances. He has been challenged several times on his "scientific evidence", even by those who do believe humans are responsible. No proof in that, just very interesting.
Personally, I'm never going to take any of these activists seriously until they address the REAL culprit behind this global warming trend!
BOVINE FLATULENCE! That's right folks. Cattle are killing us. You don't believe me? Well, have you ever walked up to a group of cows and noticed their reaction. Everyone of them will turn and stare at you with that blank expression. When I look in their eyes I can just feel the hatred and lust for revenge for all these centuries of man feasting on their kind. I tell you they won't be happy until we're the ones roasting on a spit.
But I suppose that "Concert to End Bovine Flatulence" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Concert for Climate in Crisis".