pageok
pageok
pageok
Sunday Song Lyric:
Despite Al Gore's best efforts, it seems that the Live Earth concerts (aka "private jets for climate change") were largely underwhelming. Despite performances by many big name acts, this was not Live Aid for the planet.

Not every band was eager to play the show. Some, like British indie-pop sensations the Arctic Monkeys, found the very idea of a megastar rock concert to combat global warming to be a bit much. "It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," explained the band's drummer. "Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical."

I love the Arctic Monkeys new album, Favourite Worst Nightmare, so this comment is just a good excuse to post one of their lyrics. So here's a taste of "Teddy Picker" off the new album.

Despair to the point till they provoke
The punchline before they have told the joke
The sheer desperation to be seen
Staring at the television screen . . .

She saw it and she grabbed it and it wasn't what it seemed
The kids all dream of making it, whatever that means
Another variation on a theme
A tangle on the television and the magazine
D'you reckon that they do it for a joke?
D'you reckon that they make 'em take an oath?
That says "we are defenders
Of any poseur or professional pretender around"
Here are the full lyrics, and here's a video of the band performing the song live.
James Grimmelmann (mail) (www):
Gee, Arctic Monkeys, how thoughtful of you. Don't use ten houses worth of of power to send a message and perhaps inspire people to act more responsibly; that would be hypocritical. Instead, just go ahead with your regular tour dates, playing festivals and arenas, using ten houses worth of power in the ordinary course of rocking. How much more ethical.
7.8.2007 11:56am
Syd Henderson (mail):
Well, you see, the Arctic Monkeys are freezing their butts off, sitting on glaciers while trying to eat frozen bananas. They could use some global warming.
7.8.2007 12:28pm
advisory opinion:
It is much more ethical, not to mention less hypocritical: they're playing one less concert. By contrast, participants of Live Earth like Genesis are going ahead with their tour dates as per normal.

It's not as if they're cutting down concerts "in the ordinary course of rocking" to make space for Live Earth, are they? Eh?

Face it. These monkeys have you beat any way you want to slice it.
7.8.2007 1:07pm
Adam K:
In order to non-hypocritically espouse an opinion about environmentalism, am I to understand that one must live a subsistence lifestyle in a hand-built cabin in the woods, off the electrical grid, eating naught but raw vegetables?
7.8.2007 1:17pm
therut:
I have lived long enough to see Rock bands come and go and all their so called good causes go with them.(Maybe one reason rock has left me numb. Why do they always have to have a political cause?) All the Big Concerts for this or that are soo dated and silly. They remeind me of the Pharasies saying see ME, see ME. Talk about alot of overpayed nothings. Remember Willy Nelson an Farm Aid. Yea that really worked. Still have all the subsidies to rich farmers and corporations going to feed the poor. Oh that is right it does nothing but keep the poor farmers in 3rd world countires poor. Protectionism for farmers and bought votes for Senators. I am not impressed.
7.8.2007 1:31pm
Federal Dog:
""It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," explained the band's drummer. "Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical."


Out of the mouths of babes. This event makes me think of "Earth Day" celebrations in Boston, which invariably wreak wholesale devastation to the environment. There's no penetrating the preening narcissism of the public virtue mongers.
7.8.2007 1:35pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
In order to non-hypocritically espouse an opinion about environmentalism, am I to understand that one must live a subsistence lifestyle in a hand-built cabin in the woods, off the electrical grid, eating naught but raw vegetables?


Yes, but if your cabin's made of logs you have to plant ten trees for every one you chop down.
7.8.2007 1:36pm
AF:
If Mr. Arctic Monkey (or anyone else) doesn't care about global warming or opposes the cause, they should just say so. These facile charges of hypocrisy are getting old.
7.8.2007 2:12pm
Federal Dog:
"These facile charges of hypocrisy are getting old."

Yeah, hypocrisy can be a hard one to get around.
7.8.2007 2:15pm
Ahcuah (mail):
What if using the 10 houses of power causes others to reduce usage, saving 100 houses of power?

In what way is that different than spending $10,000 to make $100,000?

If there is no hypocrisy in the latter, why would there be in the former?
7.8.2007 2:46pm
Federal Dog:
"What if using the 10 houses of power causes others to reduce usage, saving 100 houses of power?"

It doesn't.
7.8.2007 2:55pm
Federal Dog:
Brilliant example of the psychology in question (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)


I believe I can fly [Mark Steyn]


Colby Cosh has some sport with "the guru of green business practices", Joel Makower, who writes:

My travels this week take me to Detroit and Chicago for meetings and speeches. By the time I return home to California on Wednesday night, I'll have taken — if my accounting is correct — 51 plane flights during the first half of 2007. I'm not bragging, mind you. Indeed, it's rather embarrassing (and more than a little exhausting).

As Mr Cosh observes:

51 plane flights in six months for an environmental author and lecturer—embarrassing? Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Another would be "I guess my entire career has really just been one long act of satire."

The green guru defends himself thus:

Like many of my environmental professional brethren, air travel is far and away my biggest personal and professional footprint. And it's not likely to change any time soon. This reality notwithstanding, the airline industry seems poised to finally confront its environmental impacts — and mine.

So his frequent-flyer miles are an unchanging reality, and it's the airline industry that has to figure out a way to deal with it.

On a related note, several readers have asked how my campaign against sexual promiscuity is going. As you know, it's one of the great scourges of our society. Well, I'm still nailing anything that moves, and that's not likely to change any time soon. This reality notwithstanding, the rest of you really need to cut it out.
7.8.2007 3:06pm
r78:
So this is is the argument that the climate change deniers are left with: Its wrong for those environmentalists to use power to get out their message.

One can't help but think of the dismembered knight wailing "Its just a flesh wound"
7.8.2007 3:14pm
Ahcuah (mail):

"What if using the 10 houses of power causes others to reduce usage, saving 100 houses of power?"

It doesn't.


Cite?
7.8.2007 3:20pm
J.N. (mail):

Not only is it wrong for those environmentalists to use power to get out their message, it means their entire message is meaningless and does not have to be listened to.

I'm leaving town now for a week but I'm not going to unplug anything because Al Gore uses a plane.
7.8.2007 3:21pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
So the bands are using ten houses worth of power for A FEW HOURS to try to get people to change their lifestyles for their entire life? Hell, if the concert gets a hundred people to change to powersaving lightbulbs that may take care of the electric costs.
7.8.2007 3:23pm
Federal Dog:
They're not environmentalists: They're businessmen engaging in self-promotion. If they were environmentalists, they would be concerned about the damage they're doing to the environment. They're not.
7.8.2007 3:26pm
ThePartyoftheFirstPart (mail) (www):
One wouldn't be so tempted to lampoon the hypocrisy of global warming activists . . . except that the scope of what they want to regulate is so vast.

The Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA was heralded by environmentalists because it opens the floodgates to federal regulation of - as Justice Scalia nicely summed it up - "everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence." But rock stars and Al Gore get a free pass?
7.8.2007 3:53pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
r78-

Funny you should mention knights, it reminds one of the Medieval Warming Period.

See here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz60.html

Maybe one should do a little research before handing over control of the world to economically ignorant totalitarian collectivists and Malthusian neo-nazis.
7.8.2007 4:45pm
Hei Lun Chan (mail) (www):
Whether you think it's hyopocritical or not, does anyone else think that there couldn't be a worse way to persuade people to use less energy than to be part of an event that uses tons and tons of energy? Wouldn't it be much more effective to, say, get 50 rock stars to pledge to use 10% less energy in their homes the next year? Of course doing that would require real sacrifices on their part and is as unlikely as someone deciding to use less energy from seeing a bunch of rock stars talking about global warming during a concert.

The point of the hypocrisy charge is that if people who think global warming is very serious are doing nothing to cut their energy use, why should the rest of us?
7.8.2007 4:50pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Or they could go acoustic.
7.8.2007 5:07pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
Libertarians who are employees of state universities and who live only by parasitically sucking at the teet of the government leeching off taxpayers have no right to accuse environmentalists of hypocrisy, even if they drive SUVs.

Further, actually, analytically, the point about 10 houses of electricity consumed by stage lights is a dumb one. After all, surely countless people who but for the concert would otherwise have the lights on in their houses. Rather than utilizing the electricity for lighting their own homes and other entertainment devices that are shared by one or a few people, they are making use of a community resource that, while consuming more electricity than any individual residence, is actually extremely energy efficient when divided by the number of people enjoying the event. The net savings of electricity because of the concert (not taking into consideration any ideological and behaviorial transformations caused by the event) are thus likely quite considerable.

Overall, this post represents two wins for liberals:

(1) Parasitical libertarians who cannot survive except as government employees drawing financial resources coercively obtained have no right to talk about hypocrisy in others.

(2) The concert in question likely saves power, when you take into account the power consuming substitutes concert goers would likely be using if they weren't at the concert. Many would be home watching television with the lights on. Others would be travelling somewhere with their cars. That you supposedly "smart" libertarians missed this obvious point is amusing. It is amusing when a hypocrite self-righteously acuses someone else of hypocrisy; but it is absolutely hilarious when that accusation is false but their own hypocrisy is true.
7.8.2007 5:22pm
Houston Lawyer:
The profligate burners of power asking that all economic decisions be subject to their regulatory whims remind me of the Imam caught fleeing the radical Islamic school in Pakistan in drag. We should all kill ourselves in order to preserve the prerogatives of our intellectual betters, otherwise our betters might look foolish.

So long as you are living a life of mind boggling luxury, you have no moral right to lecture the rest of us on our life style decisions. At least Paris Hilton hasn't started lecturing us yet.
7.8.2007 6:03pm
Federal Dog:
The contortions people indulge in to justify rank hypocrisy are simply hilarious. Oh, and by the way: Case Western is a private school. I guess the energy required to do a quick search before attacking would have left too large a footprint?
7.8.2007 6:12pm
Crazy Libertarian (mail):

(2) The concert in question likely saves power, when you take into account the power consuming substitutes concert goers would likely be using if they weren't at the concert. Many would be home watching television with the lights on. Others would be travelling somewhere with their cars. That you supposedly "smart" libertarians missed this obvious point is amusing. It is amusing when a hypocrite self-righteously acuses someone else of hypocrisy; but it is absolutely hilarious when that accusation is false but their own hypocrisy is true.


Mr. Impressive:

Did you really think about that before you posted it?

The pollution generated by the travel these folks used to go to this additional concert (as most are surely regular concert goers), more than offset the "usage of energy" they would have used if they had just went about the normal routines.

The charges of hypocrisy are justified. If environmentalists want us to think that we are in dire straits and need to change the way we live, then they better lead by example, and start acting as if we are in the "crisis" they say we are.
7.8.2007 6:22pm
advisory opinion:
Mr Impressive (lol?):

The concert in question likely saves power, when you take into account the power consuming substitutes concert goers would likely be using if they weren't at the concert. Many would be home watching television with the lights on. Others would be travelling somewhere with their cars.

Yeah. Concert goers don't have to travel to concerts in their cars. Concerts don't produce huge amounts of rubbish and expend huge amounts of energy in the set-up and clean-up. The logistics of transporting equipment is energy-free. Concert-scale amps, musical instruments, lighting, and visuals for huge stadia don't consume energy. Concert performers and support crew don't have to travel: Snoop Dog teleports himself from LA to Hamburg. Moving huge numbers of people to and from these concerts apparently takes less energy than leaving the lights and television on for a period of time at home. We are also to naively assume that "many" would be at home to begin with - on a weekend.

Thankfully we have up to 2 billion people watching Live Earth for an inordinate amount of time (24 hours or less) with the lights on (!) to bolster your straw-grasping energy calculus. Watching something they otherwise wouldn't have watched.

"But they're REALLY saving power!" wails the Live Earth fanboy. Too funny.
7.8.2007 6:57pm
advisory opinion:
"Oh, and by the way: Case Western is a private school."

Oops. Fanboy got his Ilya Somins and Jonathan Adlers mixed up. Shame.
7.8.2007 7:02pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
As long as people are at the concert, they are not driving their cars. Granted, some people will be driving their cars to the concert. However, these concerts are usually sufficiently long that most people do less driving with the concert than with out it. Many people with cars will use the extensively when they have the free time to do so.

Second, many people who leave their house will turn off their lights to go to the concert. The lighting at the concert is nothing compared to what they would individually consume. If one set of lights is only enough to power 10 houses, but there are hypothetically 10,000 people at the concert, then you have 10 houses of power shared by 10,000 people. Or, 1 house of power for 1000 people. That is actually very efficient energy usage! Most houses are used by quite a few less than 1000 people.

Overall, given that people are not driving during the concert and have their lights off at home, these concerts conserve energy.
7.8.2007 7:27pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
With respect to Case's status as a "private" university, it should be noted that the university receives as huge amount of funding from the government, as do other "private" universities such as Harvard. All of these funds, of course, come from "coercive" taxation. In fact, these private institutions are so dependent on government funds that institutions such as Harvard Law School felt they had not alternative but to allow the military to recruit on campus, despite the fact that the military excludes gays and the faculty is very much against that policy.

A non-hypocritical libertarian would not work at Harvard or Yale or George Mason. They would refuse to work at any instution so dependant on the fruits of "coercive" taxation.

But you know, I suppose rank hypocrisy is preferable to living according to one's values. At least when it comes to libertarians. To go on to accuse someone else of hypocrisy adds to the hilarity.
7.8.2007 7:32pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Maybe one should do a little research before handing over control of the world to economically ignorant totalitarian collectivists and Malthusian neo-nazis."

Maybe one should do a little reading about the Medieval Warming Period before relying on a glib reference at lewrockwell.com.
7.8.2007 7:39pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
Someone asks:


Did you really think about that before you posted it?


In fact I did. In stark contrast to you libertarians, who apparently do not understand the simple concept of a "substitute." You act as though people, but for the concert, would not be consuming any power at all. That is an actual failure to think. Or more likely, a failure of intelligence.


The pollution generated by the travel these folks used to go to this additional concert (as most are surely regular concert goers), more than offset the "usage of energy" they would have used if they had just went about the normal routines.


And of course, people would never think of driving during their free time, if they did not have a concert to go to! The concert is energy efficient even with people driving to it, since during the concert, these people are in one place and thus not driving. If left to their own devices without the diversion of a concert, many people would drive much farther than the distance from their home to the concert and back. Furthermore, many people carpool or use other more efficient forms of transportation. As significantly, for those who would not drive anywhere but instead say home, there are large gains from sharing electricity with many other people.

If 10,000 share an amount electricity so small that it would only be enough to power a mere 10 houses, that is extremely energy efficient. That you libertarians initially thought otherwise demonstrates that you are the ones that neglect to think. Or more likely, are incapable of critical analysis. So quickly do you rush to charges of hypocrisy, even as you desperately nurse off the teet of government at your "private" universities.

No intelligent person would imagine that if these people were not at a concert, they would be consuming no electricity whatsoever. No intelligent person would think that enough electricity to power 10 houses divided by thousands of people is anything other than energy efficient!
7.8.2007 7:47pm
PJT:
Analogous argument: "Bono shouldnt pay money to travel to raise awareness about poverty in Africa. If he really cared about poverty in Africa, he'd just contribute the travel money."

Does anyone actually believe this logic?
7.8.2007 7:51pm
PJT:

"What if using the 10 houses of power causes others to reduce usage, saving 100 houses of power?"

It doesn't.


Who know what the actual effect is, but of course it makes a difference. If it werent for increased awareness on the issue, corporations such as Toyota would never have manufactured environment friendly products, such as hybrid cars.
7.8.2007 8:11pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,"

How far we have come!
7.8.2007 8:20pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
llamasex,

What do you expect from a bunch of *** who think that electricity in an amount that could be used to power a mere 10 houses shared across thousands of people is energy inefficient.

The Artic Monkeys are wise to defer to others when it comes to public policy. But not because they are 21, but rather because my door knob can outwit them. One should not be suprised that this band attributes their inability to intelligently grasp public policy to their age, rather than to the true cause, however. One would not expect them to be able to identify the true reason they should stay away from public policy debates, given their "brilliant" views on electricity consumption.
7.8.2007 8:34pm
Smokey:
When I read Mr. Impressive's wacked-out statement:

''...these concerts conserve energy.''

I decided he was off the deep end & disregarded the rest of his desperate justifications for Fat Albert's globaloney scam.

For those who would like peer-reviewed science, conclusively showing the lack of any correlation between temperature and CO2 [which is the central pillar of all globaloney propaganda], observe this interesting graph:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg

Now that it has been demonstrated -- on a time scale covering the past 4.6 billion years -- that there is zero correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, all we're left with is the arm-waving of the scientifically-illiterate Gorons.

Even the Gorebot himself knows that he's selling snake oil. Gore has stated repeatedly that we face ''a planetary catastrophe within ten years'' if mankind [meaning the U.S.] doesn't radically lower CO2 emissions. Yet Gore continues to personally emit huge amounts of pollution; many, many times more pollution of all kinds than the average American.

If the Globaloney High Priest wants to 'save the Earth,' he should dispense with his overuse of energy to avoid the resulting hypocrisy. But there's money to be made from the rubes:

Gore claims he makes everything A-OK by selling 'carbon credits' to himself for his gross emissions -- from a company he owns! Sw-e-e-e-e-e-t!

Such a scamster.
7.8.2007 9:24pm
Mr. Impressive (mail):
Smokey writes:


When I read Mr. Impressive's [brilliant] statement... I ... disregarded the rest of his [brilliant argument which I have no hope of actually intelligently discussing much less refuting. It is self-evident to me that using an amount of electricity that would only be enough to power a mere 10 houses for thousands of people is inefficient, because of course if these people were not at the concert, they would be consuming absolutely no electricity and their entire lives would be on hold. Given that I have no argument and that there is no possibility of me actually producing one, I won't actually make one. But I will cite what Mr. Impressive said without addressing it, trying to create the false impression that I could actually intelligently discuss and perhaps even refute Mr. Impressive's brilliant arguments. On top of that, I will pretend that there is no peer reviewed science linking CO2 and global warming. After all, perhaps the same technique will work with the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree that the weight of the evidence suggests that humans are the primary cause of increased temperatures in the last 20 years. See, by not addressing the work of these many brilliant scientists, I hope to create the impression that I have that ability, even though that is patently false. A Ph.D. from MIT is, after all, nothing more than a 3 letter degree from a 3 letter school! Of course, people will be fooled by my failure to engage with the work of any of the many prominent scholars who assert that the weight of the evidences suggests that human activity is responsible for most of the increased temperatures in the last 20 years.]
7.8.2007 9:45pm
frankcross (mail):
Don't knock rationalization. Where would we be without it? I don't know anyone who'd get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex. Have you ever gone a week without a rationalization?
7.8.2007 10:27pm
advisory opinion:
"Second, many people who leave their house will turn off their lights to go to the concert. The lighting at the concert is nothing compared to what they would individually consume.

. . . You act as though people, but for the concert, would not be consuming any power at all. That is an actual failure to think. Or more likely, a failure of intelligence."


Except that no one turned on the lights in the first place since it's summer, and Live Earth took place IN THE DAY! Pity. Such a failure to think, and such a failure of intelligence.
7.8.2007 11:31pm
advisory opinion:
My god that was hilarious. Retardation refuted by the obvious - lightbulbs are mostly off in the daytime.

Even if I took pity on "Mr Impressive" (lol?) and charitably assumed 5 100 watt bulbs turned on for five hours during the day, energy usage for lighting per household amounts to a mere 9000 kilojoules for the day in question. By contrast, driving even 10 miles (half a gallon of fuel) to a Live Earth event consumes 65,000 kilojoules of energy. Factor in the return journey and you're having a laugh. Thirteen households staying in barely equals the one carful of concert-goers trundling its way to and from the event. How very efficient indeed.

And of course, there's the equally dumb assumption that an attendee of Live Earth necessarily leaves his house unlit and unpowered. As if there weren't other members of the household who might light up ANYWAY (assuming one turns on the lights in the daytime as this clown does), whether or not the concert-goer was at home. This compounds energy usage, with no ostensible net savings for the concert-goer. Oh dear.

As a result of Live Earth, we have upwards of a million punters making their way to the event venue. If a good chunk of that used public transport, they would have used it Live Earth or no Live Earth (assuming they went out at all).

Of those who drove to the concerts, a good number wouldn't have been driving if there were no concerts to drive to to begin with (why assume they would go out at all?). And we've yet to take into account the amount of waste generated and energy expended by the concert itself. Plus the 2 billion people wasting an inordinate amount of energy watching the event drag on for 24 stupefying hours on TV.

Mr Impressive must have watched all 24 hours judging from his "failure to think"? (I kid.)

But admit it: you have no idea how the energy calculus works out. You're just mm-ing and hmm-ing and farting cluelessly in our general direction.
7.8.2007 11:39pm
Atlantic06 (mail):
Sems to me the anti-environmental movement is grasping at straws when the Artic Monkeys are hoisted to spokesman status.

Federal Dog: "There's no penetrating the preening narcissism of the public virtue mongers."

There are certainly plenty of them barking responding to this post.
7.9.2007 12:12am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Grover-

Maybe one should do a little reading about the Medieval Warming Period before relying on a glib reference at lewrockwell.com.

The information on lewrockwell.com has been pretty well supported in the past. If you have criticisms of the materials cited in the linked article please share them.
7.9.2007 12:35am
TJIT (mail):
Mr. Impressive might find this interesting

Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on?

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.
7.9.2007 12:46am
advisory opinion:
But the Arctic Monkeys are speaking truth to power. As an environmentalist, I welcome their common sense.

Why do Live Earth fanboys get so defensive?
7.9.2007 12:52am
advisory opinion:
TJIT, that's an outrageous waste of carbon offsets.

But don't try to convince the dullards who think people turn on lights in the day time if they weren't at Live Earth enjoying the concert lighting.
7.9.2007 12:57am
walaw:
All I know is that I saw the Arctic Monkeys during the Sasquatch Festival at The Gorge in Washington last year, during my less franctic days of law school, and those bloody wankers rocked the house.

And also,if the concertgoers at Live Earth treat the venues like the aspiring environmentalists at Sasquath treated the venue, there is going to be a hell of a lot of trash to clean up. Never have I seen such a beautiful outdoor space trashed so eagerly.
7.9.2007 1:14am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"The information on lewrockwell.com has been pretty well supported in the past. If you have criticisms of the materials cited in the linked article please share them."

Well, let's look at a few of the claims the article makes:

"The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from
around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition."

More information about all three of these can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

While I cannot vouch for the veracity of the Wiki articles, it's certainly enough to raise questions in my mind, especially in light of similar "petitions" concerning evolution and other scientific issues.

"What's more, scientists at Ohio State University announced Feb. 12 that Antarctic 'temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.' In fact, they went down."

Reading the linked article brings more perspective on how this finding relates to the current global climate models. It's not as cut and dried as the article makes it sound.

"...those who attribute the bulk of the warming cycle to man's modern technology willfully ignore the similar fluctuations known to history as the medieval warming period (when Greenland supported Viking farms), the Roman warming period, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when SUVs and coal-fired electric plants were notably thin on the ground."

The MWP was not a "global warming period," as documented here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

"But the second reason a casual viewer could conclude the skeptics have disappeared is that 'Spreading the global warming gospel with unified voice are 12,000 environmental groups controlling about $20 billion in assets,' the Tucson-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness reported last month."

DDP is associated with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medecine, promulgators of the Oregon Petition. Their web site features only one article on AIDS, by Davis Rasnick, which is enough to make me question their agenda. They are cited as authorities not once but *three times* in the article.

On a purely subjective level, I find it disturbing that the article speaks of "silencing" and "intimidation," and likens global-warming advocates to religious fanatics. This is the same sort of rhetoric employed by anti-evolutionists and it gets a bit wearisome, especially when there's so little evidence to back up such claims, apart from the occasional off-the-cuff remark by a politician or television personality, or the extremist rants of a particular author or blogger. Nor does it surprise me the article portrays the whole field of climate research as a money- and politics-driven racket populated by egotistical, grant-greedy charlatans. And I find the ginned-up scenarios of economic disaster and industrial collapse just as over-heated as claims from the other extreme. Forgive me if I don't buy into the hysteria--on either side.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any amount of skepticism regarding the alleged "crisis," but citing debunked "facts" and questionable authorities doesn't persuade me in this instance.
7.9.2007 5:30am
Mr. Impressive (mail):
Three points.

(1) No one has demonstrated that the consumption of enough power at a concert serving thousands to power 10 houses is energy inefficient. Obviously, when you consider everything, the calculation of the net power consumption or net power loss. The concern about a single concert requiring power that could otherwise be used to power 10 houses was nothing short of moronic.

(2) No one has managed to defend libertarians who suck off the teet of the government working at "private" universities.

(3) The article that TJIT links to illustrates my point about how math illiterate libertarians apparently are along with their intelligence challenged friends at the conservative Daily Telegraph. The article complains the worldwide concerts will create 74,500 tonnes of carbon emissions. It then notes that an average Briton produces 10 tons of carbon emissions a year.

Well, let us do some math, shall we? The population of Briton (60 million) x the amount of carbon emitted by the average Briton / 365 = the amount of carbon emitted by all Britons in one day. So, on a single day, all Britons emit 1.64 million tonnes of carbon.(60 million people * 10 tonnes a year / 365 per day = 1.64 million tons per day).

So, these live earth concerts, which last 24 hours, leave a carbon footprint equal to only 4.5% of the amount of carbon emitted by Britons alone in a single day. Yet these concerts are serving the entire world, not Briton alone. Given that an estimated 2 billion individuals across the world will see the concerts, the only conclusion that one can reach is that these concerts are incredibly energy efficient.

These are all number taken from a conservative Telegraph editorial criticizing the concerts. Only one conclusion is possible. Conservatives and libertarians yelling hypocrity are seriously math challenged and also fail to understand the concept of "substitute."
7.9.2007 8:35am
advisory opinion:
FYI, Live Earth's concerts last 24 hours across time zones but only 9 hours (or less) for each venue. Which means they took place during the day for each respective venue, which means the argument that "lighting at the concert is nothing compared to what they would individually consume" is only fatuous, since little to no lighting would have been used at home in the daytime anyway. The "substitute" argument is therefore so much drivel.

But fanboy concedes that, judging by his failure to respond to his failure to think.

Funnily enough, he doesn't give up. (The dim can be so stubborn.) Recall that Mr. Impressive's earlier claim was that Live Earth was energy efficient because it takes up less energy than it otherwise would have.

As that has been thoroughly debunked, he now makes the different, more nebulous claim that Live Earth is "energy efficient" - not because it uses up less energy than normal routines would have - but because it "uses only 4.5% of Britain's daily carbon output but serves 2 billion people"! Incredible!

Except that 2 billion people contributing to an additional 4.5% on top of the carbon bill they otherwise would not have contributed but for Live Earth - is still laughably inefficient according to his earlier criteria - now conveniently jettisoned - however he wants to slice it.

Even funnier is his attempt to prove numeracy after being embarrassed by the mathematics of light bulb usage vs. transport energy expenditure caused by the terribly inefficient Live Earth.

As an environmentalist, I'm embarrassed by these amateurish apologists for the corporate environmentalist movement.
7.9.2007 10:23am
frankcross (mail):
I'm a little embarrassed by the rude arrogance of some commenters.

Those who attended Live Earth would otherwise have done something. Perhaps taken a long drive. That something might have used more or less energy than the concert. I don't know. Neither do any of the other posters, I suspect.
7.9.2007 11:54am
whit:
the funniest thing i have seen about live earth is all the fawning over yusuf israel aka cat stevens' performance

imo, tea for the tillerman was a great album, and the guy is very talented...

but...

this is a guy who supports the fatwah (ie death sentence) against salman rushdie. how can live earth have credibility with "saving the world" if they invite singers who support death sentences for authors who DARE write novels that offend some muslims?

peace train, indeed!
7.9.2007 12:28pm
advisory opinion:
Yea, the nominally green types who bothered going for Live Earth would have went for a long drive otherwise - a stretch of an assumption to say the least. That a large number of them would have went for a long drive had there been no Live Earth would have been even more of a stretch. (It's hard to imagine anything as energy consuming as travel - and an event such as Live Earth basically compels it.)

But Frank Cross agrees with me at least in part. As I mentioned in any earlier post, if Live Earthers don't know how the energy calculus works out for the concert-goers, then they can't say anything definitive about the concert-goers net energy expenditure one way or another. Therefore all arguments about what the concert-goers 'would have done otherwise' becomes moot (e.g. the inane 'substitute' argument).

What we can say something definitive about however, is the concert itself. Such a massive undertaking is bound to generate incredible amounts of waste and consume unconscionable amounts of energy. The energy required for the logistics of such large scale events wouldn't have been expended. Nor would the energy required to power concert-scale amps, musical instruments, lighting, and visuals be wasted on stoking awareness that is already at saturation point. Nor would absurd amounts of energy be used to fly and bus concert performers and support crew halfway across the world with all that massive haulage of equipment entails.

In short, there's hardly anything "efficient" about Live Earth as the useful idiots of corporate environmentalism would have you to believe.

You'd have to be credulous (or exhibit "a failure of intelligence" [lol?]) to buy it.
7.9.2007 12:46pm
advisory opinion:
Mr. Impressive writes:

". . . my point about how math illiterate libertarians"

You mean innumerate. After your facile light bulb maths I guess this makes you both illiterate and innumerate.

Impressive.
7.9.2007 1:06pm
TJIT (mail):
I never imagined Marie Antoinette would have so many modern fanboys. A surprising amount of them have showed up on this thread.

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.

Such is the level of disquiet felt about Live Earth in New Zealand, that a pressure group called the Climaction Coalition, is urging people to protest against it on July 7. Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear
I don't care if the stars want to fly around in private jets.

However, the arrogance and hypocrisy required to jet around in a private jet, live a life of fabulous luxury, and then hector average citizens to reduce their carbon footprint has one result.

It gives reasonable, informed people the desire to tell the Al Gore and the hectoring stars to go pack sand.

Particularly since the citizens the rock stars are hectoring are just every day folks trying to make a living.
7.9.2007 1:26pm
Federal Dog:
"After your facile light bulb maths I guess this makes you both illiterate and innumerate."


Strange, repeated references to "teets" sure don't help either.
7.9.2007 1:31pm
Smokey:
''A Ph.D. from MIT is, after all, nothing more than a 3 letter degree from a 3 letter school...''


MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world. How would a lawyer feel if someone completely dissed his formal education and experience? As an argument, that would be unimpressive indeed.

But at the same time he is dissing MIT, ''Mr. Impressive'' buys into the human-induced global warming snake oil put forth by the same Fat Albert who got a D in Science. And who flunked out of college. After that failure, Gore went on to flunk out of divinity school! How lame is that?

MIT's Atmospheric Science department is second to none. Therefore, it makes sense to listen to the Chair of that department, Dr. Richard Lindzen:

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.


BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.


So who are you gonna believe... MIT's top climatologist? Or Mr. Impressive?

I know who my money is on.
7.9.2007 1:41pm
TJIT (mail):
Mr Impressive, if you ever move beyond regurgitating slogans and actually learn about the environment and how political policy impacts it you will be profoundly embarrassed by your defense of this concert event.

Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on?

stars will be ferried between the stage and dressing room by energy-efficient Smart Cars and biodiesel fuelled Mercedes.
We will ignore the the energy costs and transport required to manufacture and ship the Mercedes to the concerts. However, a good look at the biodiesel these mercedes are fueled with should be entertaining.

What about the land?

The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use. Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.
Even the measures the promoters have taken to greenwash this event are causing environmental destruction.

The mind boggles.
7.9.2007 1:50pm
whackjobbbb:
A bunch of promoters glue a green leaf onto some rock concert tickets, buy some extra advertising and pay-for-view, and jack total revenues accordingly.

I love it... it's magic, babe. Don King will probably be on board with his next fight too.
7.9.2007 7:20pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Grover Gardner-

While I cannot vouch for the veracity of the Wiki articles, it's certainly enough to raise questions in my mind, especially in light of similar "petitions" concerning evolution and other scientific issues.

While that may be the case, it doesn't explain why some of the signers have changed their minds on these issues, or if they were correct in doing so.

Forgive me if I don't buy into the hysteria--on either side.

I don't see as much hysteria on the side critical of anthropomorphic global warming. I do see a lot of it in some of the global warming crowd. And I am personally concerned about environmental issues. I just know that socialism, coercion, collectivism, higher taxes, depopulation, etc. are not the solutions.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any amount of skepticism regarding the alleged "crisis," but citing debunked "facts" and questionable authorities doesn't persuade me in this instance.

Well to be fair some of the authorities cited were those that originally backed some of the initiatives but with further study changed their minds.
7.10.2007 4:17am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"I don't see as much hysteria on the side critical of anthropomorphic global warming."

I disagree. This article is a case in point. So are many of the comments above.

"Well to be fair some of the authorities cited were those that originally backed some of the initiatives but with further study changed their minds."

Then they do themselves a disservice by relying on inflammatory rhetoric and misleading information to make their case.
7.10.2007 1:28pm
amativus (mail):

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," explained the band's drummer.


This quote is really infuriating. Why is my generation the first to be so damn apathetic? You're 21, you're *supposed* to try to change the world. Don't excuse your own laziness, there are a lot of 20 year olds out there changing the world more than you will at 40.
7.10.2007 11:56pm
Federal Dog:
"You're 21, you're *supposed* to try to change the world."


No, you're not. You lack the knowledge and experience to understand the world, much less change it. Grow up first.
7.11.2007 6:22am