Live Earth

Excuse me Mr. Al Gore but what the deuce made you want to have a concert to and I quote "raise awareness about the climate crisis". I mean come on all we hear about on television and the internet now adays is how we are killing the planet and the big scary global warming is gonna get you. I mean cheers for the free music Al but go take a long walk off a short peer. Here are are a few things Al Gore needs to consider

1. People complain that metaine from cattle,sheep and other farm animals harm the environment. Remember Dinosaur Al? There where as many dinosaurs knocking around at one time as there are cows & sheep etc. now. Guess what Al planet didn't die and I'm sure dinosaur farts were far worse.

2. Stop giving out to China about admitting harmful gas. Every country in the world imports from China so we are all part responsible for their pollution.

3. When Britain went through the industrial revoltution alot of harmful gas was released into the air. Global warming? No actually Global freezing during the height of this period world temperatures drop 4 degrees C. The United States doesnt admit 1/2 the amount the Britain of that era did & people whine about it.

4. I agree recycling is a good idea but not every country has the inferstructure to do this. Tell governments to fix it so we can have recycling bins in the West of Ireland then whine to me about not recycling everything, I recycle my bottle & cans but without the bin collection I have to throw away the paper and cardboard.

5.Bio fuels are the way to replace oil. Crops we can grow to turn into fuel. But then people complain where will we grow food. There are plenty of empty fields to grow stuff in without touching the food. Shut up bleeding hearts.

6.And one last thing Al how much pollution do you think your little concert caused to promote your Global Warming stuff. Alot

Al go stick to hunting Man Bear Pig I'm super serial(Watch South Park that will make sense.)But thanks for all the music though.

wow so much anger for something that didn't really hurt anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eiko guy

wow so much anger for something that didn't really hurt anybody.

---

Spreading false and inflammatory messages which would cause, at the least, severe economic damage if the advice was followed, is not hurting nobody.

Whether or not it is false is another matter, but I remain unconvinced that Humans are having any significant effect on the Earth's climate. The ecosystem has varied more wildly than this before. As in, before we started doing anything.

Edit: The main reason I dislike this kind of thing is that it's A) A bunch of celebrities who either feel guilty for being successful, or want attention who take up the cause of the momeny, and B) It's a completely ineffective tactic anyway.

I liked the music part

So who played?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Whether or not it is false is another matter, but I remain unconvinced that Humans are having any significant effect on the Earth's climate. The ecosystem has varied more wildly than this before. As in, before we started doing anything.

---

That is not a very sensible critique. "We aren't the cause this time because this has happened before and we weren't the cause then." Quite frankly, it seems almost completely implausible that we aren't a major cause of global warming. To put it another way, humans have been changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere through massive emissions of various compounds over the last 100 or so years. It's incredibly likely that this change in atmospheric content has had some effect. As to what effect exactly, a good guess would be the observable changes in climate, especially since carbon emissions correllate so directly with global temperature. Not all things that happen in sequence have a cause-effect relationship, but all cause-effect relationships happen in sequence.

This seems like it should go in EoEo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

So who played?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Whether or not it is false is another matter, but I remain unconvinced that Humans are having any significant effect on the Earth's climate. The ecosystem has varied more wildly than this before. As in, before we started doing anything.

---

That is not a very sensible critique. "We aren't the cause this time because this has happened before and we weren't the cause then." Quite frankly, it seems almost completely implausible that we aren't a major cause of global warming. To put it another way, humans have been changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere through massive emissions of various compounds over the last 100 or so years. It's incredibly likely that this change in atmospheric content has had some effect. As to what effect exactly, a good guess would be the observable changes in climate, especially since carbon emissions correllate so directly with global temperature. Not all things that happen in sequence have a cause-effect relationship, but all cause-effect relationships happen in sequence.

---

What he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

3. When Britain went through the industrial revoltution alot of harmful gas was released into the air. Global warming? No actually Global freezing during the height of this period world temperatures drop 4 degrees C. The United States doesnt admit 1/2 the amount the Britain of that era did & people whine about it.

---

Climate Change doesn't necessarily mean global warming. In fact, it's very likely that the melting of the polar ice caps will result in another ice age in Europe, and possibly North America (have fun). Besides that, it's unlikely that Britain during the industrial revolution could emit enough greenhouse gases on its own to cause a major shift in global climates. With the number of countries emitting those gases now though, well you can guess. Also keep in mind that the environment has the capacity to cope with a certain amount of emissions. Beyond that though you run into trouble, especially with many countries causing more and more emissions every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

4. I agree recycling is a good idea but not every country has the inferstructure to do this. Tell governments to fix it so we can have recycling bins in the West of Ireland then whine to me about not recycling everything, I recycle my bottle & cans but without the bin collection I have to throw away the paper and cardboard.

---

Al Gore telling governments to build the infrastructure for large scale recycling isn't going to make it happen. If you want your government to institute a more comprehensive recycling program then you and other voters in your country/area will have to make it known that you want it. Whether you do that through writing politicians, protesting or some other means is up to you, but it won't happen unless you take the initiative. It's easy to expect others to just make it happen, but nothing will really get done that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

That is not a very sensible critique. "We aren't the cause this time because this has happened before and we weren't the cause then." Quite frankly, it seems almost completely implausible that we aren't a major cause of global warming. To put it another way, humans have been changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere through massive emissions of various compounds over the last 100 or so years. It's incredibly likely that this change in atmospheric content has had some effect. As to what effect exactly, a good guess would be the observable changes in climate, especially since carbon emissions correllate so directly with global temperature. Not all things that happen in sequence have a cause-effect relationship, but all cause-effect relationships happen in sequence.

---

Of course it's sensible. We are fully aware that changes like this can and do happen on a regular basis without the existence of Humans, nevermind our modern technological industry. Why, then, should we presume that this instance is an exception to those, except through an arrogant presumption that we are oh-so-important and that nothing can happen unless we're involved? What about the fact that Mars is undergoing global warming, and her icecaps are melting? Could the sun perchance have something to do with that? Or is that somehow our fault as well?

As to emissions - you're right about cause-effect relationships happening in sequence. What you're wrong about is the sequence. Temperature changes happen first, and then emissions change. Usually several hundred years later.

A concerts not gonna do :skull::skull::skull::skull: in the long run unless the people who went there are willing to do more than listen to music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eiko guy

wow so much anger for something that didn't really hurt anybody.

---

Sorry I did go a bit over the top the I'll admit that. I just saw it all as a pointless waste of time apart from the music. Heard on the news today Live Earth left behind 2 tonnes of waste behind between the 8 concerts. Not very eco friendly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Besides that, it's unlikely that Britain during the industrial revolution could emit enough greenhouse gases on its own to cause a major shift in global climates.

---

Should of said I meant the British Empire which at the time was alot larger than Britain is now. (This is not meant as a patronising comment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Al Gore telling governments to build the infrastructure for large scale recycling isn't going to make it happen. If you want your government to institute a more comprehensive recycling program then you and other voters in your country/area will have to make it known that you want it. Whether you do that through writing politicians, protesting or some other means is up to you, but it won't happen unless you take the initiative. It's easy to expect others to just make it happen, but nothing will really get done that way.

---

In my option Al Gore doesn't really have the right to tell anyone to do sqwat. He is still swore about losing the Presidential election to Bush and now just champions causes to get television time. Just my opinion so sue me.

We had a general election recently in Ireland and the Green Party now have seats at the government cabinet so maybe something will happen. Not likely in my opinion. So I suppose is was unfair of me to blam Al on my countries government's short coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Of course it's sensible. We are fully aware that changes like this can and do happen on a regular basis without the existence of Humans, nevermind our modern technological industry. Why, then, should we presume that this instance is an exception to those, except through an arrogant presumption that we are oh-so-important and that nothing can happen unless we're involved? What about the fact that Mars is undergoing global warming, and her icecaps are melting? Could the sun perchance have something to do with that? Or is that somehow our fault as well?

As to emissions - you're right about cause-effect relationships happening in sequence. What you're wrong about is the sequence. Temperature changes happen first, and then emissions change. Usually several hundred years later.

---

Of course the climate changes without our involvement. But it doesn't follow from that therefore we have no effect, or that changing our behavior won't have any effect. Sure, there are other factors working to influence global climate. But anyone who says humans don't have a major effect is just a fool. We may not "destroy the earth" but clearly we have the power to make the planet less hospitable for humans.

What emissions are you talking about? Are you saying we emit more carbon or other gases into the atmosphere as a result of changing climate?

Ultimately, our global climate is changing, probably based on a large number of factors both in and out of our control. Given the options of doing nothing and blaming it on the sun, and curbing pollution to reduce human-caused negative effects, the produnt choice is to fix what we can. Saying that we have no effect just serves to rationalize the easy choice of doing nothing. Just about the only people left advocating that course of action are contrarians and oil companies.

edit: concernign the Mars South Pole melting, see RealClimate » Global warming on Mars? Réchauffement global sur Mars ?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

We had a general election recently in Ireland and the Green Party now have seats at the government cabinet so maybe something will happen. Not likely in my opinion. So I suppose is was unfair of me to blam Al on my countries government's short coming.

---

While I think it's severely unlikely that the Green Party will form a government either in the UK or in Ireland, I think the main political parties are at least willing to tackle the Green issue now. As much as I hate them, even David Cameron's Conservatives are 'raising the green agenda.' It's hardly revolutionary (especially considering the Green Party have been around for years, and Labour and the Lib Dems have had greener environment policies than the Tories for years), but at least it's doing something about it. I think the whole issue of climate change is now much important, at least within British political circles, so that hopefully more should get done about it.

Also, I got a laugh out of a friend of mine complaining about all the carbon emissions that Al Gore's Live Earth probably caused due to moving equipment, powering the thing, flying bands there and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

We had a general election recently in Ireland and the Green Party now have seats at the government cabinet so maybe something will happen. Not likely in my opinion. So I suppose is was unfair of me to blam Al on my countries government's short coming.

---

While I think it's severely unlikely that the Green Party will form a government either in the UK or in Ireland, I think the main political parties are at least willing to tackle the Green issue now. As much as I hate them, even David Cameron's Conservatives are 'raising the green agenda.' It's hardly revolutionary (especially considering the Green Party have been around for years, and Labour and the Lib Dems have had greener environment policies than the Tories for years), but at least it's doing something about it. I think the whole issue of climate change is now much important, at least within British political circles, so that hopefully more should get done about it.

Also, I got a laugh out of a friend of mine complaining about all the carbon emissions that Al Gore's Live Earth probably caused due to moving equipment, powering the thing, flying bands there and so on.

---

Different partys are doing things to help stop it but no where near enough, theyre just saying they are already and will do even more to help prevent it to gain more support:p

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Besides that, it's unlikely that Britain during the industrial revolution could emit enough greenhouse gases on its own to cause a major shift in global climates.

---

Should of said I meant the British Empire which at the time was alot larger than Britain is now. (This is not meant as a patronising comment).

---

Sorry, got to catch you out here. The British Empire only had factories inside the modern UK. They've produced and sold their goods to the people in the colonial states. One of the many reasons those states couldn't develop properly under imperialism. Read more about the Indian Boycott and the Indian freedom movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

That is not a very sensible critique. "We aren't the cause this time because this has happened before and we weren't the cause then." Quite frankly, it seems almost completely implausible that we aren't a major cause of global warming. To put it another way, humans have been changing the chemical makeup of our atmosphere through massive emissions of various compounds over the last 100 or so years. It's incredibly likely that this change in atmospheric content has had some effect. As to what effect exactly, a good guess would be the observable changes in climate, especially since carbon emissions correllate so directly with global temperature. Not all things that happen in sequence have a cause-effect relationship, but all cause-effect relationships happen in sequence.

---

Of course it's sensible. We are fully aware that changes like this can and do happen on a regular basis without the existence of Humans, nevermind our modern technological industry. Why, then, should we presume that this instance is an exception to those, except through an arrogant presumption that we are oh-so-important and that nothing can happen unless we're involved? What about the fact that Mars is undergoing global warming, and her icecaps are melting? Could the sun perchance have something to do with that? Or is that somehow our fault as well?

As to emissions - you're right about cause-effect relationships happening in sequence. What you're wrong about is the sequence. Temperature changes happen first, and then emissions change. Usually several hundred years later.

---

In the end, it doesn't really matter if we're the main reason or just a co-factor for the climate change. The problem is that we're adopted to exactly this very sort of climate. Be it a temperature raise or fall of X degrees, more or less humility or any other climatic change, it -will- harm us.

The solution the nature found in the past for beings that have adopted to their climate was evolution. A rat with born with furry tails survived and gave off-spring while the rat with a sleek tail died. It was always the survival of the fittest and the change of species from one climate to another.

Now, this doesn't really work for humans. We don't live outside anymore and, as far as I'm aware, we don't simply let the weaker people die. The argumentation of the US for not signing the Kyoto, ergo "it'll harm our economy", is therefore completely gullies. A climate change means that living will cost a whole lot more. Instead of being able to sleep with open windows in summer, we'd have to either heat the room or cool it down, which in return will eat up more energy resulting in even higher pollution raters. People, especially in poorer states, who will not be able to afford this sort of maintenance will be doomed to the survival of the fittest mechanism and, maybe, they're evolve into the next species. However, this'll mean a whole lot of dead bodies lying around for a good number of generations.

In other words, either we try minimising our effects on the environment now or our kids will have one hell of an energy bill to pay. We can't prevent it from happening, but we can win some valuable time. Saying that environmental care is far less important than building a strong economy is one of the most egoistic things one can do.

That being said, I hate Green Peace and other organisations of that sort.

OOC:	This is about polution, not music. Move to EoEO please.

To answer Heath. The Green Party are in government in Ireland with Fianna Fail(largest party we have),two progressive democrat mp's & some independants.

Discord cheers for the slap across the head. But the modern United States still have not polluted the world quite as much as the old British Empire did.

This reminds me of that South Park episode. Lawl.

So I'll ask again, who played this show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Discord cheers for the slap across the head. But the modern United States still have not polluted the world quite as much as the old British Empire did.

---

Even if that's true it's not the point. The U.S. is one of, if not the worst polluter of every first world nation on Earth. On top of that, when the Britain started the industrial revolution, you didn't have every single country and their pet dog strip mining the planet for every natural resource they could get their hands on in an attempt to do the same thing. With all the countries out there destroying their local eco-systems with no care for the consequences it falls on first world nations in particular to not only curb our own polluting, but to make the technologies that will help solve the problem available to other countries. No amount of burying our heads in the sand is going to get around the fact that we need to do something to lessen our impact on the environment, because we're all going to have to live with the consequences in the next few decades.

And the argument that all of this change will be hard on the economy is crap. The development and sale of new products and technologies can only help create more jobs and new business opportunities/industries. The transition might be tough, but it's not like the global economy would come crashing down leaving us all bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

So I'll ask again, who played this show?

---

Apparently it was a series of concerts with different performances at each, Wikipedia covers the full spectrum here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

So I'll ask again, who played this show?

---

Spinal Tap. That's all I watched. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

To answer Heath. The Green Party are in government in Ireland with Fianna Fail(largest party we have),two progressive democrat mp's & some independants.

Discord cheers for the slap across the head. But the modern United States still have not polluted the world quite as much as the old British Empire did.

---

Ah. The Greens will be used to add up for a coalition. I was more on about them winning a straight out majority (like Labour have in the UK) and being the only party in government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Discord cheers for the slap across the head. But the modern United States still have not polluted the world quite as much as the old British Empire did.

---

Not really slapping anybody here at all. Just reminding you that the British industry during the colonial times was located inside the UK, which then again contradicts with your argument from before.

In all honesty, I'll admit that I haven't got a clue who caused more pollution so far, UK or the US. I simply do not know. I'm actually having problems figuring out how we'd compare the modern pollution with the coal fires from back then.

However, I don't think that stating that UK once polluted much more than US does now is a good argument for environmental ignorance. Also, we shouldn't forget that during the industrial revolution there were a couple of other problems the people had to worry about (think alone about the fact that the goods were sparse and that the market was production-orientated), not to mention the fact that there was simply no other power source other than the coal. Fact being is that while the rest of the world is trying to suppress the emissions, the US shows a big middle finger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odaisé Gaelach

Spinal Tap. That's all I watched. :D

---

Sorry, someone said Spinal Tap and now I forgot what I was going to say.

Actually, as a historian-in-training, I have to say that whole UK comparison is pretty worthless. There are 3 nation-states that took coal use to the extreme, Britain and the US, like you said, and China. The UK obviously had it alot, you'll hear the stories of how in major cities it was literally black skies with smog.

In the US, ironically even today, the effects and intense use of coal are just as bad, it's just not as visible. It's also covered up alot. No, i'm not talking conspiracy theories, i'm talking of ways that it gets masked. Still today we use coal alot in much of our power plants, and alot of the laws that got passed to "reduce" coal emissions were mostly a farce, the numbers that were talked were really insignificant details and you'd be amazed at how much we're really emitting. It's actually a few miles that your vision is limited to because of it. Also, several people do die every year from the coal we emit.

China actually is a huge problem with it, the ratio of energy to people actually using it is terrible, possibly worse than in the first industrial revolution, the technology is crude and the rate is horrifying.

As far as our economy, the main complaint is on the auto industry and i have news for you - our automobile producers are already suffering severely because their products can't compete with the energy efficiency of cars from overseas, especially Japan. At its height, the US automobile industry produced probably 90% of the world's cars, now i don't think we even have a majority in our own country.

I've already gone off too much for my own good, and i'm sure the threadstarter wasn't that serious (maybe he/she is, i don't know) but i just find it sad when people want to complain, ridicule, and challenge people who are genuinely trying to do some progressive things to elevate our society, and world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

To answer Heath. The Green Party are in government in Ireland with Fianna Fail(largest party we have),two progressive democrat mp's & some independants.

Discord cheers for the slap across the head. But the modern United States still have not polluted the world quite as much as the old British Empire did.

---

Ah. The Greens will be used to add up for a coalition. I was more on about them winning a straight out majority (like Labour have in the UK) and being the only party in government.

---

Oh right get you now. If in some mad alternative universe that was to happen the Irish economy would be completed destroyed an the people would be poorer than during the potato famine of the 1840's as they would tax everything not environmentally friendly which when you think about it is alot of things in Irish society.