1

By your logic, Bush loves war -- because (you seem to think) it is absurd to make things a little worse in hopes of making them much better.

Similarly, a person with difficulty managing money is (by your logic) foolish to purchase financial advice, because such an expenditure just makes their financial situation worse.

Sometimes one accepts a short-term loss for the sake of a
long-term gain.

And besides, the energy expended in these concerts will be just a drop in the ocean of the world's energy consumption, despite your amazing figures.

However, you are right that all the people involved, from Gore to the performers, are hypocrites if they don't take steps to minimize their own atmospheric CO2-increasing use of energy. They should, for instance, fly by commercial jets instead of chartered jets. If they don't take concrete steps themselves, they are being hypocritical.

2

By your logic, Bush loves war -- because (you seem to think) it is absurd to make things a little worse in hopes of making them much better.

But when has any of the "awareness raising" exercises ever made anything better? We have many examples of wars arguably making things better, South Korea in the aftermath of the Korean War, Germany and Japan in the aftermath of WW2, Europe after the Napleonic Wars, for example. Of course sometimes war makes things worse, but in many cases that can be traced to the victors not finishing the job. The first Iraq War and WW1 are examples of this. Where are the examples of things improving after these events? It appears to me that these events exist mainly to make a bunch of rich liberals feel good about themselves.

3

I am sure that Joe will be accused of being a little over the top!

But how is that any different than the global alarmists.

I read this article yesterday! http://tinyurl.com/33qd9z
Some of it is incredibly funny!

For example when Tim Flannery is describing the effects of global warming this way "picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof", when the best guess of even alarmist experts is that the seas will rise at worst by no more than 59cm (23 inches) over 100 years.

Or the fact that since Europe adopted the Kyoto Treaty they have increased CO2 output 4X faster than the US.

I don't mind so much that people actually believe that we are contributing to global warming despite the evidence against it. What I mind is that our efforts at pollution reduction (that is real), decreasing disease etc. is being pushed to the side by these alarmist who are unable to actually have a debate about the subject at all. The IPCC report is a political statement mixed in with some facts and missing many facts as well, anybody that can't see that is truly blind!

4

Be careful with commentary like this. Remember that glow-ball vorming skeptics should be silenced. If one disagrees with the orthodoxy (aka "consensus"), one must carefully confine one's disagreements to samizdat.

But we have much to be thankful for, as always. After inventing the internet, the Anointed Overlords have now discovered how to control the glow-ball climate. Gaia may now be supplicated with an avalanche of documentary agreements and consensual treaties. The evil energy producers will be forced to heat only the 10,000 square foot second homes of the Anointed Overlords. The lumpenproletariat, the flotsam and jetsam of society that buoy the port-listing Good Ship Lollipop, may shiver in their rude huts and walk to work or take Mass Transit. After all, they are the masses.

Next on the to-do list are toilets that use only 1 ml per flush.

I'll bet you never knew that a D in undergraduate science could make you a glow-ball concert promoter, did you?

5

Joe seems to have conceeded that global warming is a problem and that it's cause is CO2 emmissions. He notes that this series of concerts will produce CO2. I do have some quibbles with is accounting. For example, yes people watching the concert on TV or computers will use electricity which generates CO2 but many of those people would have been watching their TV's anyway even if the concerts didn't happen. If Joe really believes that many people will actually increase their TV viewing time to watch the concert then he has to ask what would they have been doing if the concert wasn't on TV to watch. If they would have been hiking through the woods or reading a book then yes that's a bit more CO2. If they would have been driving around in their cars then that probably nets to less CO2.

But more seriously the concert will add to global warming by some tiny amount. However if the concert rallies people to do something about global warming then the true net impact on CO2 may be to negative rather than positive.

Of course an effort to offset some or all of the CO2 produced by the concert would be a nice gesture but it's a bit like saying a business's purpose is to make money so why is it spending money on R&D and advertising. Well often you have to spend money to make money. Likewise to cut CO2 you will probably have to initially generate CO2. For example, you don't think research labs that are working on nuclear fusion are using electricity from coal based power plants. If we cut their budget to plant trees to 'offset' that CO2 would we really be making a long run contribution to reducing CO2 or sabatoging one?

Tim L

I don't mind so much that people actually believe that we are contributing to global warming despite the evidence against it.

I notice many who say this often fail to actually present any of this evidence against global warming or its causes. When they do (see the last global warming thread), their standard of proof is often laughable and highly one-sided. For example, in the previous thread someone called Ron told us that global warming was happening on Mars and was caused by the sun. When I dug into this claim (he to date has refused to articulate where he got it...despite his assertion that arguments of skeptics like him are never taken seriously) it appeared to have been based on exactly two observations. One a picture of Mar's polar ice caps and another a picture a while later. The ice had shrunk and if it continues to shrink at that rate the ice caps will disappear. So the entire argument was based on two observations. Do you think Ron and people like him would accept global warming if we presented them with only two observations supporting it?

....is being pushed to the side by these alarmist who are unable to actually have a debate about the subject at all.

If you want to have a debate then present your arguments or should I say support them. You have asserted the IPCC is missing 'many facts'. Which facts? What are they and how do they support your argument? BTW, what is your argument? Are you asserting global warming doesn't exist? That it exists but isn't caused by CO2 and other gasses created by us? That it exists and is caused by us but won't cause us much trouble so it's better to just bear it rather than spend billions to prevent or reverse it? It's interesting that I have to ask these questions of someone who claims to be itching for a debate.

6

It might be easier to take the concert's organizers and performers more seriously if they didn't lead lifestyles that would make a Saudi prince jealous. It also doesn't help that much of modern pop music glorifies levels of consumption that really defy description. Maybe they could show they were serious about preventing global warming by bulldozing their 50,000 sq ft homes and planting trees in their place and moving into more modest accomodations, or instead of traveling with an entourage that fills half a dozen Escalades, shrink it down to one that fills half a dozen Priuses(sp?). Instead of wagging their jewel encrusted fingers at us and telling us we need to do with less, how about leading by example and making some real sacrifices.

Just as an aside, I really don't envy them their wealth; they earned it and can do what they want with it. But don't shout at me that I am destroying the planet from your Gulfstream V.

7

Joe knows there is going to be a concert series. Joe knows that concerts consume energy in a great many ways and that it leads to CO2. After that Joe assumes many things.
Sounds a lot like the case for global warming to me.

8

Really ucfengr, must you use class warfare to advance your argument against doing anything regarding global warming? I'd think that many of the commentors here would not be the type to have such affection for Marxist tactics but surprises abound.

9

BTW, how serious would this "well what about you" argument work with other issues. For example, suppose someone said "Joe is telling us we should ban abortion, How many unwanted babies has he adopted! Zero?!" I doubt ucfengr or Mike O would find that a very effective argument against pro-lifism. Even if Joe cares very little for kids in his personal life and would never adopt one it doesn't make him wrong about abortion.

Likewise if Al Gore and everyone else did exactly what you demand them to do you wouldn't be the slightest bit impressed. There are celebrities who have made honest efforts to reduce their CO2 impact. Joe cites the Rolling Stones as one example, another that comes to mind is Ed Begley Jr. Do people like ucfengr give these people any additional credibility because they go to great efforts to be very environmentally concsious? No. So why do their criticisms deserve any credibility?

10

"F"

Watts are a measure of energy per hour.

And not only that, you'd have to subtract what people would already be doing with those devices.

Which would be, uh, already having them on.

As Atrios says, "The stupid! It burns!"

11

I don't know Al Gore and know next to nothing about his motives and lifestyle. I am very troubled, though, by Joe's last sentence: "For the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore cares more about being viewed as an eco-savior than he does about actually acting in a way that might help us “save our selves.” "

That's a pretty strong accusation, Joe. Do you have some evidence for this? Even if Gore is wrong, it is certainly possible that he is acting in good faith. I recall Jesus once saying something about "Judge not, lest you be judged." Or maybe that doesn't apply here?

12

It's strange Ex how there is such a strange denial on the part of global warming skeptics. They complain that they are being silenced, that they are not permitted to debate. Yet their only arguments seem to revolve around rhetorical stunts, mockerly or victimization mongering.

I'd love to debate global warming but not if Joe's idea of a debate is to haggle over whether I showed up in a car that doesn't get enough MPG for me to be sufficiently enviornmental enough to represent my side!

13

Boontoon,

Get off your high horse. You espouse supposed facts without backing them up all the time. But, somebody disagrees with you and you cry foul.

Whatever!

I don't have to present facts to 1) state an opinion and 2) is available by any search engine on the internet.

Give it a try.

If you truly lack the intelligence to figure things on your own (I really don't think that, just being a snot) then here is some help!

Some (many) of these are opinion pieces with links to facts to dig in further!

http://tinyurl.com/33p5tf

An example - Gieg clicks a button, and three charts come together. The peaks and valleys of the Milankovi´c cycles for planetary temperature align well with the ocean-floor estimates, and those match closely the records of carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature indications from ice cores. So, the professor maintains, these core samples from the polar ice and ocean floor help show that the Earth’s temperature and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been in lockstep for tens of thousands of years.

Of course, that was long before anybody was burning fossil fuels. So Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that “natural” climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That’s the crux of his argument with Gore’s view of global warming — he says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery020607.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2vdcyd

http://tinyurl.com/358v4t

http://tinyurl.com/2fm4ch

http://tinyurl.com/2geltm

http://tinyurl.com/2fg726

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1118

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/harris013107.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2y5vp8

http://tinyurl.com/2znsyx

http://tinyurl.com/yoc2fz

http://tinyurl.com/24kcvb

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

http://tinyurl.com/n6urv This link is to CO2science which is an excellent site.

14

hodgekiss Sometimes one accepts a short-term loss for the sake of a long-term gain.

How exactly does this event translate into a long-term gain?

And besides, the energy expended in these concerts will be just a drop in the ocean of the world's energy consumption, despite your amazing figures.

Bingo. You’ve hit on my unstated point. Even this concert, as wasteful as it is, is not really all that significant on a grand scale. So how exactly is the “conscious raising” supposed to do anything?

Boonton Joe seems to have conceeded that global warming is a problem and that it's cause is CO2 emmissions.For example, yes people watching the concert on TV or computers will use electricity which generates CO2 but many of those people would have been watching their TV's anyway even if the concerts didn't happen.

I was hoping that someone was going to catch on to the point. If CO2 emissions are really the problem—and Gore seems to believe it is beyond dispute—then shouldn’t he be telling people to turn off their computers and TV rather than hosting an event that creates more problems?

Joe cites the Rolling Stones as one example, another that comes to mind is Ed Begley Jr.

I give both the RS and Begley credit for being consistent with their ideals. Their efforts are rather Quixotic—a bit like my recycling efforts—but at least they are trying to be consistent.

Watts are a measure of energy per hour.

Um, no it’s not. A watt-hour (W-h) is a measure of energy per hour. A watt is the measure of one joule per second.

And not only that, you'd have to subtract what people would already be doing with those devices.

Again, that’s the point. Gore should be telling people to turn off those devices if he is really interested in saving the planet.

As Atrios says, "The stupid! It burns!"

I bet it does, you poor fellow.

ex-preacher Do you have some evidence for this?

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Even if Gore is wrong, it is certainly possible that he is acting in good faith.

I suspect that Gore is a smarter man than me. So if I imagine that he can see that this even will do absolutely nothing to change global warming. He should be able to look at the last “Live Aid” event (that one, if you’ll recall, was on global poverty) to see that these “conscious raising” exercises are more about making the participants feel good than changing the world.

I could be misjudging Gore, though. Maybe it isn’t that he’s a hypocrite. Maybe he’s just not all that bright.

15

Get off your high horse. You espouse supposed facts without backing them up all the time. But, somebody disagrees with you and you cry foul.

Actually I cried foul when someone presented supposed facts, I asked a question about them and he went off on a martydom tangent instead of just explaining what he was talking about.

Here I asked you a simple question; What is your argument? Are you asserting global warming isn't real (your first link seems to argue it is). Are you asserting humans activity is not a cause of it? Or are you asserting that it isn't anything to worry about. This means just present your argument. It DOES NOT mean give me 20 links an expect me to read them or even click on them. This isn't a college class and you're hardly a professor so think twice before assigning us reading lists and homework!

Anyway, for what little you did actually snip from the first link, cause and effect are often hard to take apart. So if CO2 historically has gone up and down with the temperature how do we know if CO2 causes the increase in temperature or if the temeperature increases CO2.

I'd ask a few simple questions:

1. Perhaps in the past the causal relationship was temperature causing CO2 to go up but the fact is humans are releasing huge amounts of CO2. I don't think this is really disputable since anytime we burn anything with carbon in it we produce CO2.

2. I don't think you'll get any dispute that the link is not linear. In fact this may be either a blessing or curse. Blessing if we can continue to dramatically pump more CO2 into the air but not get much warming...it could also be a curse if there's a tipping point where warming picks up much, much faster than a simple linear relationship.

3. Arguing that there is a long term gradual warming trend, IMO, is not very helpful for the skeptical side. If there is a warming trend then adding an artificial one on top of that seems to me to be more risky. There is a natural aging process that we are all going through but that hardly means it wouldn't matter if some chemical accelerates the onset of old age!

4. If temperature increases do increase CO2 naturally I'd ask if this isn't a perfect set up for a very vicious feedback cycle. In short, suppose 100 units of CO2 cause some warming. Because warming increases CO2 naturally you now find yourself in a situation where to get back to where you began you have to cut back not by 100 units but by 125 or more!

Joe
I was hoping that someone was going to catch on to the point. If CO2 emissions are really the problem—and Gore seems to believe it is beyond dispute—then shouldn’t he be telling people to turn off their computers and TV rather than hosting an event that creates more problems?

Actually turning off the TV would probably be a bad idea. If people turned off their TV and hopped in their cars you can forget about saving any carbon. But point taken, if you would like to organize a 'carbon free hour' campaign where you get a million people to pledge to reduce carbon emmissions for an hour go ahead.

But as you pointed out, we are talking about drops in the bucket

Bingo. You’ve hit on my unstated point. Even this concert, as wasteful as it is, is not really all that significant on a grand scale. So how exactly is the “conscious raising” supposed to do anything?

I think the exactly is:

1. Motivate consumers to demand greenhouse friendly products and services.
2. Motivate voters to support policies that would make an impact on CO2 and other gasses.

Whether or not you think these are good ideas the potential CO2 saving in these two things could dwarf any savings achieved by scuttling seven concerts.

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Heh, sounds a bit like the "How many kids have abortion opponants adopted?" routine. Yes it would be a nice gesture if Gore switched to wind energy at his houses (which I suspect are only in use a fraction of the time given his extensive traveling). I'm sure you would agree it would be nice if every Supreme Court Justice who opposed Roe.v.Wade adopted 3 unwanted babies. If they did, though, I would not be more impressed by their arguments against Roe nor would you be for Gore's arguments. And why should we?

16

Joe,

I wasn't asking for evidence that Gore isn't as green as he could possibly be. I was asking for evidence to back up your assertion that he cares more about being seen as an "eco-savior" than he does about alleviating global warming.

Besides, as Boonton has pointed out, the level of hypocrisy in the messenger does not negate the truth of the message. I seem to recall that Christians are constantly telling everyone else this whenever one of their leaders is caught with his hand in cookie jar (or somewhere else).

As to whether the concert(s) will do any long-term good, I honestly don't know. I do think there is a good possibility that such an event will influence more people to consider this issue the next time they vote. Proving such a direct connection would be difficult. Have other such events actually influenced policy? I think one can argue that entertainers did help draw the world's attention to AIDS in Africa which was then followed by political leaders budgeting huge sums of money for this cause. Didn't Bush invite Bono to the White House? I would also argue that the 1963 March on Washington helped push the nation and its political leaders toward the Civil Rights legislation that was enacted in 1964 and 1965.

17

Mumon: Take care who you call stupid. The calculation of watts does not in any way involve time. A watt is a unit of power only, a watt-hour or more common kilowatt-hour is measurement of power and time used by power companies for billing rates.

18

Boonton

Really ucfengr, must you use class warfare to advance your argument against doing anything regarding global warming?

Nice try, but I specifically said that I don't envy them their money and how they choose to spend it. What I do have a problem with is them telling me that my middle class American lifestyle is destoying the planet as they jet overhead in their Gulfstream on the way to their 50,000 sq foot mansion. If you are going to tell me that my lifestyle is destroying the planet, shouldn't you start by only using, maybe 50 times more than I, rather than a thousand times more.

Mumon

Watts are a measure of energy per hour.

Actually watts are a measure of energy per second. One watt = 1 joule/second. Before you start criticizing someone's use of units, shouldn't you make sure you know WTF you are talking about first? Lesson number one for nitpickers, before you start picking someone else's nits, make sure all yours have been picked.

And not only that, you'd have to subtract what people would already be doing with those devices.

Which would be, uh, already having them on.

Actually Joe's assumption is pretty good as far as it goes. He's assuming that the concert will generate one additional hour of television for each viewer, pretty conservative for a 24 hour concert. I think he could double his estimate and still be fairly conservative; there are some pretty big name acts (i.e. some that I have actually heard of) that have already been anounced.

19

What I do have a problem with is them telling me that my middle class American lifestyle is destoying the planet as they jet overhead in their Gulfstream on the way to their 50,000 sq foot mansion.

This might be sort of reasonable if Gore really argues that everyone must give up a middle class lifestyle. I haven't heard him make this argument. While some aspects of our lifestyle almost certainly must change lifestyles have never been static anyways. On the contrary, I think Gore's primary message is that our Middle Class lifestyle is in danger from global warming and it is.

Now maybe its unfortunately but the fact is the US is a middle class nation. Just as there are not enough rich people (and those that are rich do not have enough money) to single-handedly solve all the problems of poverty, unemployment and lack of health insurance through taxes, there are not enough gulfstream riding superstars that we can greenify to make a signficant impact on CO2.

Actually Joe's assumption is pretty good as far as it goes. He's assuming that the concert will generate one additional hour of television for each viewer, pretty conservative for a 24 hour concert.

If this is true then that means an hour of some other activity must be decreased by the concert. In order to estimate CO2 impact you have to have a handle on what that lost hour of activity is. If it is some realy CO2-lite activity like sleeping, meditating, reading or staring into space then yea that additional hour will add to CO2. More likely, though, I suspect it will be a CO2 heavy activity like driving, buying stuff, or consumption of some sort.

Here's another tidbit to think about. What else would these big name acts have been doing? If they are so big on Gulfstream riding CO2 making as you say then donating their time to a global warming concert would actually cut back on emmissions. If they spend their money making CO2 then getting them to do an unpaid concert means less money for them to literally burn!

20

A watt-hour (W-h) is a measure of energy per hour. A watt is the measure of one joule per second.

Sorry Joe. Power (Watts) is a measure of energy (Joules) per time (seconds). It's a rate. A watt-hour is watts * hours = the amount of energy delivered in one hour. The watt-hour is a unit of energy, not a rate.

21

I'm no mathmetician or engineer, but the more I study Joe's numbers, the less they make sense to me. I'm calling on someone out there besides Joe to look at his calculations and see if they make sense. The numbers just sound absurd to me.

For one, he talks about converting watts to kilograms of CO2, but the formula is actually for turning KILOwatts into kilograms of CO2. Then, instead of telling us there are 86 million kilograms of CO2, he gives us 86 million metric TONS of CO2.

Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone who knows something about this, do a double-check on the numbers here? Thanks!

22

Global warming advocates:

My mind isn't made up on whether global warming is real, and if it's actually statistically significant over recorded history, whether it's man-made.

But one question that's actually been interesting for me to think about is if it is man-made, how do we know we can even reverse it?

Another way to put it is how much needs to be done for global warming to stop, because if it can't, then what's the point in futile posturing?

Please don't give me a variation on "Well, we don't know for sure, but every little bit helps..." If it's there, I'd appreciate hard evidence to back up the assumption that if we are responsible for global warming, then something can be done about it, and what that something is. Like if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10%, there will be a 1% reduction in global mean temperature or something to that effect.

Otherwise, I think it's reasonable not to worry about controlling global warming. Maybe a more appropriate concern would be how to get off the planet.

23

Ex,

You're right on. The conversion unit of 0.43 is for kilowatts, not watts; and kilowatt is 1000 watts. So to begin we know that Joe's numbers are off by a factor of 1000.

Moreover, the 0.43 gives us not metric tons but kilograms. But 1 metric ton is equal to 1000 kilograms. Thus Joe is off by an additional factor of 1000. Combined, Joe is off by a factor of 1 million. That's 1 followed by 6 zeros. Hardly a minor error.

Really, Joe.

24

Okay, I took a stab at this.

I'll start with Joe's figure of 200 billion watts (1 billion TVs times 200 watts).

200 billion watts translates into 200 million kilowatts.

According to a converter I found, 200 million kilowatts would result in an emission of 280,340,000 lbs (not tons) of carbon emissions.

Using 1 pound = .453 kg, we get 127 million kilograms

Since a metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, we get 127,000 metric tons.

According to the same calculator I used above, one would need to purchase $4 million of green tags (99% wind, 1% solar) to offset the carbon emissions.

The energy converter is at http:// www. greentagsusa.org/GreenTags/calculator_intro.cfm

(remove spaces before and after www)

25

uc,

But when has any of the "awareness raising" exercises ever made anything better?

Examples off the top of my mind: the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement, the prohibition movement, the labor movement, and the isolation of Apartheid South Africa. These movements had other aspects as well, but it seems that raised awareness was an essential part of each. Indeed in the first example - the civil right movement - it was the most important tool in their arsenal. They enlisted the aid of much of White America through their attempts to raise awareness; and they eschewed a tool often used in other movements, viz. violence. With violence off the table, education became their most important tool.

26

Finally, my brothers and sisters, I have seen the truth.

Global warming is a non-issue and environmentalism is just a sneaky way of introducing socialism to our country. Al Gore doesn't really hate the gasoline powered internal combustion engine, HE HATES AMERICAN CAPITALISM!

Glad the issue has finally been resolved for me.

JohnW

27

ex-preacher Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone who knows something about this, do a double-check on the numbers here?

***cringing***

Okay, I messed up the numbers. All those metric conversions threw me off and led me to an error in calculation that we several orders of magnitude out of whack.

It's an embarrassing error but I have to say that I'm a bit relieved. I was really starting to believe that Gore's concert might actually heat up the planet. ; )

Thanks for catching my mistake.I rewrote the post to factor in the new calculations.

28

giggling

Please don't give me a variation on "Well, we don't know for sure, but every little bit helps..." If it's there, I'd appreciate hard evidence to back up the assumption that if we are responsible for global warming, then something can be done about it, and what that something is. Like if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10%, there will be a 1% reduction in global mean temperature or something to that effect.

Isn't the question you're really asking "What are the costs of global warming and what are the costs of stopping or slowing it?". If a 10% reduction was relatively inexpensive and 1% represented a lot of global damage it would be sensible to do it.

What we are working with here is uncertainity. Those who say Al Gore is scaremongering, he is only scaremongering in the way your doctor is when he tells you that you better stop smoking if you don't want lung cancer. Truth is your chances of getting lung cancer are low even if you smoke. Nevertheless it is a real enough risk that you should consider quitting even though you probably will dodge that bullet.

No one has proven Gore's worse case scenero's to be wrong. At best they are unlikely but that should be of limited comfort. So we are stuck where it is almost undeniable that global warming is happening, it is almost certain that human activity is a primary cause of it. We are uncertain whether the impact will be good, mildly bad, bad, really bad, or super-The Day after Tomorrow-bad. To me this is a case for doing something now on all fronts. This would mean trying to find easy ways to lower CO2, using R&D to look at non-carbon based energy, and looking at what it would cost to simply asorb the ill effects of global warming. We may luck out early on in the game with an amazing breakthrough or by learning that global warming won't be all that bad. Then again we may not which means we can tighten things up in the future and start doing more expensive options but it's better to lay the groundwork sooner rather than later.

29

Thanks for admitting the mistake and attempting to make the correction, but I believe you are still off by a factor of ten.

You say that 200 billion watts equals 2 billion kilowatts. That's incorrect. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts, so you should say 200 million kilowatts.

200 billion divided by 1,000 is 200 million (take off three zeroes). You have instead divided it by one hundred.

30

Joe, why do you dislike Al Gore so much?

Since you seem to think that global warming isn't real, or if it is, we shouldn't waste our time trying to do anything about it, let Al have his fun and you can move on to more important matters. This kind of mockery of another human being with whom you disagree simply is beneath a Christian.

You seem to have a penchant for mockery. Get rid of it for the sake of the Kingdom.

31

This sort of post, disingenuous at best, sullies the image of evangelicals. You hurt your cause more than you hurt Gore or his environmental causes. Perhaps you are more concerned with preaching to the choir than outreach.

32

According to the same calculator I used above, one would need to purchase $4 million of green tags (99% wind, 1% solar) to offset the carbon emissions.
The energy converter is at http:// www. greentagsusa.org/GreenTags/calculator_intro.cfm

I suspect green tags are probably a less efficient way to remove a ton from circulation.

So using this as a base you can put on 7 large concerts and host it over TV/Internet with a billion viewers and make it carbon free for an added expense of $4M. How much does this affair cost without paying attention to carbon? $20M? I suspect it would probably be more like $40-$50M.

For those who think Al Gore must be advocating everyone giving up civilized lifestyles how prohibitive would it be to add $4M to the cost of an affair this large? If, say, next years Superbowl cost $4M more than this year's would anyone even notice?

Early on here Tim L attacked linear thinking on CO2 and temperature but there's a lot of linear thinking on the relationship between reducing CO2 and economic cost. The assumption seems to be that you can't reduce CO2 10% unless you reduce your lifestyle 10%. I'm not going to say CO2 can be dramatically reduced with no costs (although there probably is lots of low hanging fruit that can be plucked for next to nothing) but the economy is not optimized for CO2. By that I mean there is currently no incentive to minimize CO2 emmissions beyond non-economic incentives like 'feeling good' or being praised by envio-types. There are overlapping incentives to cut fuel use but these are not quite the same thing. Yes if you can run an electric plant that uses 0.05% less coal to make the same amount of electricity the economy will reward you but if you can run the plant to make the same amount of electricity using the same amount of coal but with 1% less CO2 output there is zero reward. The upside to this is if there was a direct cost to emmitting CO2, the market would probably find and deploy lots of easy ways to cut CO2.

In the previous thread I pointed out a carbon tax is probably the best way we can go. It can be raised or lowered as evidence for global warming's negative effects comes in and can be made revenue neutral.

33

ex-preacher Thanks for admitting the mistake and attempting to make the correction, but I believe you are still off by a factor of ten.

*sigh*
Yep. You’re right. Rewrite # 2….

SolaG Joe, why do you dislike Al Gore so much?

I don’t dislike Gore, I just dislike his pretension and hypocrisy.

Since you seem to think that global warming isn't real, or if it is, we
shouldn't waste our time trying to do anything about it, let Al have his
fun and you can move on to more important matters.

I think you missed my point. If global warming is real then we need to take it very seriously, rather than holding silly concerts and such. The problem, as I see it, is that when people like Gore—who have a religious belief in the cause—treat is as if its not serious then it brings down the entire debate.

If Gore is right then we need to start restricting all emissions, not crank them to even higher levels in order to “raise awareness.” (Seriously, if someone needs to be told by a rock star that global warming is a problem how likely are they to be the kinds of serious people who will take real action?)

This kind of mockery of another human being with whom you disagree simply is beneath a Christian.

I’m afraid I have to vehemently disagree with you there. If I were mocking the weak or denigrating his dignity then you would have a point. But mocking willful human foolishness is not any different that what Jesus did.

34

(Seriously, if someone needs to be told by a rock star that global warming is a problem how likely are they to be the kinds of serious people who will take real action?)

This is odd....Chruches and other organizations do fun things all the time to raise awareness, raise funds, and motivate action. When they do a 'walk to fight cancer' do you get all huffy over the fact that the walking itself will do little to actually decrease the risk of cancer and what little it does would probably be swamped by the people exposing their skin to sunlight?

35

Whether we like it or not, many people are motivated to action by the example and encouragement of actors, musicians and other celebrities. People and the press pay more attention to Bono, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Tom Hanks and even Al Gore than they do to scientists and policy wonks. Celebs have raised awareness and a fair amount of $$ in dealing with catastrophes such as Katrina and the tsunami. Jerry Lewis and friends have rasied quite a bit for MD.

Even Christians have been known to use entertainment and celebrities to try to influence and convert people. That is, if you count Stephen Baldwin and Kirk Cameron as celebrities.

36

OK, this is getting a little old. In your latest version, Joe, you say "This would reduce the amount of energy used to 400 billion watts of energy (1 billion people sharing a 200 watt source for one hour)."

How do you get 400 billion by multiplying 200 watts times 1 billion people? Your previous versions had the correct number: 200 billion watts.

37

ex-preacher Whether we like it or not, many people are motivated to action by the example and encouragement of actors, musicians and other celebrities.

I wish I could say you were wrong but the 24/7 Anna-Fest has sort of proven your point.

Still, we don’t have to buy into that nonsense. Live 8 came and went without making a dent in global poverty. All that “awareness raising” didn’t seem to account for much.

How do you get 400 billion by multiplying 200 watts times 1 billion people?

In my attempts to be clever I was overcomplicating it, making it hard to follow the numbers. I rewrote most of the post and changed it back to the original 200 watts times 2 billion people (the actual audience that Gore expects to have). All that "monitor sharing" stuff was unnecessary fluff.

In fact, the entire post could have been summarized: Skip the concert and host a tree-planting event if you want to "raise consciousness."

38

I'm still not sure why we can't have some concerts with good bands for global warming when we can have lame walks for cancer, spaghetti dinners for the local PTA, and endless tricki-trays for lots of things.

39

Fine, but fix this sentence that's still in your post: "This would reduce the amount of energy used to 400 billion watts of energy (1 billion people sharing a 200 watt source for one hour)."

Some consciousness-raising publicity stunts work, some don't. You can name some that didn't work, I can name some that did. The fact that so many people recycle today is due, in large part, to the emphasis on this by various celebrities in the 90s. I think it's worth a try. Honestly, do you think staying home to plant a tree is really going to fix this massive problem?

40

yawn

41

You know, all this making fun of Al Gore and pooh poohing the threat of global warming is great fun, but how about ridiculing and minimizing something else like say maybe the increased militarism of our country and why it's a threat to the future of our democracy and general well-being. Perhaps someone could pick apart Andrew Bacevich's book, "The New American Militarism" and paint the author as some raving left wing moonbat or something?

42

Tim L. If I was you I would be careful about quoting anything Andrew Bolt says.

43

I think Joe is off base here for two reasons:

1) He is questioning motives.
2) We are all hypocrites, and Joe knows it

I like to start every discussion assuming that everyone's motives are good. They generally are! Even if your motives are to put Germany back on the map, clean up society, and redress the grievances of WWI. Generally, the methods and the consequences (intended and otherwise) are open to question
So let's assume that Al thinks this is the biggest problem facing the planet and is acting accordingly. We can also assume that he is a hypocrite, just like everyone else.

Surely some good is done in the world. Necessarily, it is done by hypocrites with mixed motives.

Surely we must try to do good, knowing that our knowledge is incomplete and our motives suspect.

I'm not as convinced as Al, but I drive a car that gets 50mpg on the highway, just in case. But, I am also a cheapo and looking out for my own wallet. I'm also a techie for whom a turbo-diesel has a nerdy appeal. Hypocritically, our other car is a 3l, V6 , indispensable family truckster.

My point is that we should do what we can with what we know, and get over the poking our fingers at hypocrisy. It will always be there to find. All causes need cheerleaders, so give him a break.

Speaking of cheerleading, if anyone would like to do a tiny bit of good, and feel good about it, check my website.

44

Examples off the top of my mind: the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement, the prohibition movement, the labor movement, and the isolation of Apartheid South Africa.

I don't know, Franky. Do you really think it is valid to compare people braving Bull Connor's firehoses or getting their heads bashed by anti-union thugs or spending decades in solitary confinement with a bunch of rich liberals flying off to a concert, whose main purpose seems to be to act as a platform for an Al Gore presidential run?

45

but how about ridiculing and minimizing something else like say maybe the increased militarism of our country and why it's a threat to the future of our democracy and general well-being. Perhaps someone could pick apart Andrew Bacevich's book, "The New American Militarism" and paint the author as some raving left wing moonbat or something?

Yeah, that sounds like fun. The only problem would be that I would have to actually read the book, which sounds only slightly less painful than cutting off my one of my little fingers.

46

I'm going to read the book-so far I've just read some short reviews. This increased militarism or "military industrial complex" problem was brought to our country by both republicans and democrats. It's not a "Bush bashing" or "america hating" type of thing either. It's misguided to think that a democratic congress and whitehouse will solve the problem-we the people need to inform ourselves and reclaim democracy.

Andrew Bacevich is not a liberal.

47

From the Live Earth website:

In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Commission, SOS – The Campaign for a Climate Crisis will implement a new Green Event Standard with Live Earth that we hope will become the model for carbon neutral concerts and other live entertainment events in the future, as well as anticipate the opportunity to develop this standard into a LEED-approved certification process for entertainment venues.

John Picard, the award-winning sustainability expert and former member of President Clinton’s Green White House task force, is leading the SOS team of sustainability expert. By embedding a team of world-class sustainability experts within the production staff, waste streams will be designed out prior to its negative environmental impact. From power generation at the concerts to garbage generated by concert goers, Live Earth will bestow an eco-friendly legacy on the live entertainment industry.

Among the steps being taken are:

- All electricity that powers the shows will be from renewable sources, either through utility supplied renewable energy, biodiesel generators, or renewable energy credits
- Concessionaires will be encouraged to use and directed to suppliers of agricultural / biodegradable plastics (i.e. made from corn). Also, concessionaire waste will be minimized through a comprehensive recycling system organized at the venue.
- Venue offices, walkways, etc will be retrofitted with compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, where possible.
- The entire production design will follow sustainable light design principles. Production lighting will include the use of LED light bulbs and production/artist trailers will be incorporate low impact technology in areas such as air conditioning units.
- SOS staff and artist air travel will be offset through carbon credits.
Ground travel will be hybrid or other clean fuel where possible.
- Hotels will be directed to change light bulbs to CFLs, use nontoxic cleaning products, and have recycling containers present in the rooms.

48

I'm going to read the book

You do that, John. I prefer to damage my brain the old-fashioned way, through the liberal use of alcoholic beverages.

49

ucfengr finally finds his own sustainable lifestyle!

50

ucfengr finally finds his own sustainable lifestyle!

Given a choice between ethanol in my gas tank or in a hi-ball glass, I will always choose the latter.

51

But mocking willful human foolishness is not any different that what Jesus did.

Once you make a case for willful human foolishness, maybe we could debate the point. In light of your poorly researched post (see comment 47 and your multiple mathematical errors), it seems that Mr. Gore is not engaged in willful human foolishness any more than you are.

When it's brought to your attention that your numbers are off by a factor of one million, you might just say "i'm sorry" and send gore a polite e-mail of apology. You might consider apologizing for the baseless charge that he is more concerned about being an "eco-savior" than about doing something constructive about the problem. You might even promise to treat him as you would want to be treated.

What I think I've learned from this thread is that Gore is trying to do something constructive about a real problem in a responsible manner, and that there may be a better way to debate the merits of his plans than the path you chose. I'm hoping you'll you'll agree.

Blessings.

52

SolaG Once you make a case for willful human foolishness, maybe we could debate
the point.

How about we start with the obvious fact that having a concert will not do one single thing to prevent global warming. If Gore was seriously interested in doing something, he could fly to China to lobby his buddies to do something. Instead, he wants to put on a silly show.

(If you disagree, then please show me one of these concert events that has had a significant impact on the cause for which it was held.)

In light of your poorly researched post (see comment 47 and your multiple mathematical errors), it seems that Mr. Gore is not engaged in willful human foolishness any more than you are.

True, I made some errors for which I apologized for. How long until Gore apologizes for the factual errors in his scare-mongering movie?

You might consider apologizing for the baseless charge that he is more concerned about being an "eco-savior" than about doing something constructive about the problem.

Baseless charge? This is a man who advocates people use wind/solar power and yet doesn’t use if for his own mansions. Gore doesn’t appear to do anything for the environment unless there is a camera or a reporter around to catch him “saving the planet.”

You might even promise to treat him as you would want to be treated.

Agreed. If I ever start lying on the grand scale that Gore is known for then I hope someone will call me on it.

What I think I've learned from this thread is that Gore is trying to do something constructive about a real problem in a responsible manner, and that there may be a better way to debate the merits of his plans than the path you chose. I'm hoping you'll you'll agree.

I couldn’t disagree more. At first, I couldn’t understand why people were coming to Gore’s defense over his silly little concert series. It had totally slipped my mind that he was the man who could have saved us all from Bush. I wasn’t just mocking a shameless huckster I was mocking a favorite shameless huckster of the Democratic Party.

To be honest, I think Gore is they type of guy who needs to have a cause to latch onto in order to raise his exposure. He was a second rate Senator who became a third rate VP and ran a fourth rate Presidential campaign. Now he wants to save us all from global warming with a movie and a concert and I’m supposed to take him seriously?

53

South Park episode "Man-Bear-Pig".

Says it all.

54

Why so much hatred of Al Gore. Is that anyway to treat your brother in Christ?

55

Baseless charge? This is a man who advocates people use wind/solar power and yet doesn’t use if for his own mansions. Gore doesn’t appear to do anything for the environment unless there is a camera or a reporter around to catch him “saving the planet.”

Hmmm, but if you dug into the fineprint like A did in post 47 you would see that great efforts are being made to make this concert highly green. If nothing else it could becme a model for other concerts saving whatever greenhouse gasses it emmitts by cutting them for future concerts. YOu're big on gestures and stunts but as I have argued before I don't think they are often the best use of our efforts to address global warming.

I doubt, for example, that once the concert is over the venues will go around smashing the light bulbs they installed. No doubt the techs who set up the LED lights will use what they learned on other events and so on.

I couldn’t disagree more. At first, I couldn’t understand why people were coming to Gore’s defense over his silly little concert series. It had totally slipped my mind that he was the man who could have saved us all from Bush. I wasn’t just mocking a shameless huckster I was mocking a favorite shameless huckster of the Democratic Party.

To be honest, I think Gore is they type of guy who needs to have a cause to latch onto in order to raise his exposure. He was a second rate Senator who became a third rate VP and ran a fourth rate Presidential campaign. Now he wants to save us all from global warming with a movie and a concert and I’m supposed to take him seriously?

If you couldn't understand it then perhaps you should start by asking why you felt the need to make such a big deal about it in the first place. I mean you began this whole discussion with a hyperventiliating post accusing Gore of being some type of false Messiah, tripping over some basic math and getting rather hissy whenever anyone challenged your errors.

Perhaps the reason isn't because Gore's defenders have some type of secret and irrational love for the man but you seem to have an irrational hate for him. What did he ever do as VP that was so bad that you would rate him 'third rate'. How did he run a fourth rate Presidential campaign if he won the popular vote and came within an inch of winning the election?

Ahhh perhaps that is it. It isn't so much that we love him because he could hve saved us from Bush. What type of silly motivation is that? Do you love the guy who almost pushed you out of the path of an oncoming train or the guy who actually did save you? No I think maybe what is getting your goat about Gore is that he kept Bush from having the clear decisive win you think Bush deserved after the presumably hellish years of Clinton AND with every new failure of the Bush administration it looks to more and more people that Gore should have been the choice the US made back then.

56

Back when I was a teen I remember eco-imperialists warning of the impending ice-age doom and gloom. Looking back I have to thank Global Warming for saving the earth from a dreadful deep freeze.

Oh yeah I also remember way back when proggs were trying to convince the unwashed masses that Reagan caused AIDS.

57

guys, obviously it seems like a bad move to raise awareness for the environment by costing the earth more than it will gain. not only are the ideas of Gore most likely prioritized on his own personal glory, but also the people coming to the show are just looking for a party..the fun of the festival. take away the 100 bands and celebrities and see how much it actually prospers. it's all hypocritical.

let's spend the day rather in optimism and faith. i encourage everyone who reads this to fast and pray for our nation in Nashville on 07/07/07, surrending all to the one true God.

www.thecall.com

58

Bradley,

I visited your website.

I agree-their needs to be a change in our culture and media. Will your ideological warfare include speaking out against the Iraq war, torture of detainees, the obscene amount of our taxes being spent on defense, when there are so many needs at home? I know what I just mention may be construed as too political, but I think all the things I mentioned above are sinful and displeasing to God.

If you are going to speak out against the evils of mass media and how they overly sexualizing young people, perhaps, you could give a thought to how that same mass media numbs people to the violence that is being done by our government in foreign lands? Also, the mass media seems to glorify violence as well.

Just a thought.
John

59

Back when I was a teen I remember eco-imperialists warning of the impending ice-age doom and gloom. Looking back I have to thank Global Warming for saving the earth from a dreadful deep freeze.

Yea you remember a single Newsweek article which, even at the time, was greeting with much skepticism by many scientists...including those who were exploring the relationship between CO2 & global warming.

60

Every one of you is missing the point.

When it comes right down to it, you need to have faith to believe that global warming is truly happening, and that we - as humans - can actually do something to change it. I don't happen to share that faith, but I'm okay with others believing in it, so long as it doesn't affect me.

As a Christian, I don't expect others to have a 'Come to Jesus' meeting with me. I don't intend to shove my views on others, even though I believe that ultimately not accepting Christ means eternal hell. I find shoving things down people's throats not only unproductive, but obscenely offensive, and 'shoving things down people's throats' is exactly what the enviro-cult is doing.

No matter which way you look at it, Environmentalism is a relgion. It has its own sins, sacrifices, disciples, high priests, heaven, hell, and judgement day. Their God is 'Mother Earth'. It takes faith to believe that humans can control the temperature of the earth, because no one can prove that we CAN change the temperature of the earth, much like I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that heaven and hell exist.

The difference here is that this sort of prostelitizing would never be allowed by Christians or other religions, and certainly this compulsion to force everyone to believe as the environmentalists do is frightening, to say the least.

Also, to address the folks who are saying that this concert's carbon footprint is okay, because it may bring awareness and change the way other people live their lives, "for the planet" is the most rediculous argument I've ever heard. It's not unlike a preacher saying that he sleeps with the women of his congregation to bring them closer to God. The sin is still the sin, and if environmentalists are as real as they say they are, they should not endorse Live Earth, simply because of its hypocritical nature.

http://www.pheistyblog.com/archives/408