If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Live Earth concerts: artists flight distance = 222,623.63 miles, carbon emissions produced by all concerts = 31,500 tons, carbon emissions including TV audience = 74,500 tons, hypocrisy = off the scale   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 360
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

2199 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Jul 2007 at 6:14 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



360 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-07-07 12:31:00 AM
Yes they should all never leave home, just to show how eco-conscious they are.

Please, DIAF Smitty
 
2007-07-07 12:34:50 AM
Dinki: Yes they should all never leave home, just to show how eco-conscious they are.

Please, DIAF Smitty


Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

If you're over the age of 25 and think this makes a difference, please. Walk off a very tall building & make sure you fall face-first.
 
2007-07-07 01:11:08 AM
But, I bet all of the airplanes have those carbon ticket bumper stickers on them.
 
2007-07-07 02:52:22 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2007-07-07 03:10:45 AM
SUCK IT GORE
 
2007-07-07 03:23:10 AM
The whole Global Warming religion looks just like a large Ponzi scheme. Plenty of "testimonials" to "prove" it works and critics are treated like heretics.
 
2007-07-07 04:40:36 AM
Dinki: Please, DIAF Smitty

Won't that release MORE carbon into the atmosphere? Think!
 
2007-07-07 06:19:07 AM
I don't think anyone should care about anything, or do anything, it gets in the way of business.
 
2007-07-07 06:23:25 AM
this thread has no hamburger penis
 
2007-07-07 06:23:47 AM
If only there was some way to broadcast a concert on some kind of interconnected network managed by computer systems...
 
2007-07-07 06:25:17 AM
Demonstrating how much they burn demonstrates the absurdity and impracticality of their hard carbon cap argument.


One of the bad things about all the focus on CO2. It has taken away the focus on air and water cleanliness issues.
 
2007-07-07 06:28:24 AM
Nothing man does has any effect on Global Warming anyway, so let the stupid Libs have their silly concerts. Does it really hurt us ? I'm planning a new tire fire this week, and it goes with saying that the Tahoe is idling right now just in case I feel like going out later.

God bless smart "conservatives" who know better than to make any attempt to plan for the future.
 
2007-07-07 06:29:04 AM
Norad Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness. The concerts don't make a difference, but if more people learn about reducing their carbon footprints as a result of the PR, that can make a difference. If you can't figure that out, it's you who belongs on the edge of the very tall building.

What is it with all these idiots who are anti-climate awareness? I mean, there are only 3 scenarios here:

1) Global warming isn't happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. Nothing bad happens.

2) Global warming is happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. We possibly save future generations from a very ugly world.

3) Global warming is happening. People do nothing. Result: Some degree of ugly world - described often enough elsewhere that I won't bother here.

So please tell me, what's so terrible about #1? Why NOT try to make the planet cleaner and greener?
 
2007-07-07 06:33:57 AM
As you increase the density of certain radioactive material, it can cross a threshold which causes a chain reaction. Feel free to draw a metaphorical parallel.
 
2007-07-07 06:34:39 AM
It just becomes ridiculous when this is being used as a political issue while it is obvious by the amount of waste they are producing that slowing global warming isn't their objective- stealing as many votes as possible by appealing to young people is the motive. That may or may not be the case, but it sure looks that way...
 
2007-07-07 06:34:42 AM
100 Watt Walrus: Why NOT try to make the planet cleaner and greener?

The Liberals want it, so it has to be bad. Good "conservatives" like Norad know that the only that matters in life is fighting the Libs. Even if he has to destroy his own future.
 
2007-07-07 06:38:13 AM
Mordant: This has never been an issue of conservatives vs. liberals. Who doesn't want a clean Earth? Just don't manipulate with something as serious as the survival of life on our planet when reducing global warming isn't your goal.
 
2007-07-07 06:39:03 AM
What can we learn from this story? Al Gore is a dirt bag.
 
2007-07-07 06:39:59 AM
Yes, because it is definitely a bad idea to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, you know, from a business standpoint....................Oil business, that is.

Naturally, this would also not be a good idea to reduce our dependence on imported fuels - just ask any of the current crop of "conservatives".

I swear, the nanny state government should ban the bathing in KoolAid for the good of the Homeland.
 
2007-07-07 06:44:07 AM
Mac Savvy: makes the statement that,

This has never been an issue of conservatives vs. liberals. Who doesn't want a clean Earth? Just don't manipulate with something as serious as the survival of life on our planet when reducing global warming isn't your goal.

Can you furnish us with a list of hard right-wing, conservative advocacy groups that are centered on reducing emissions and fossil fuel usage, please - you know, to bolster your claim?
 
2007-07-07 06:54:10 AM
He makes a good point though, making millions of people more aware of a problem is never a worthy goal if you have to be wasteful in order to do it.
 
2007-07-07 06:59:52 AM
Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes.

I'm not going to watch it so that I don't contribute. I'll watch something else instead.
 
2007-07-07 07:05:43 AM
binnster: I'm not going to watch it so that I don't contribute. I'll watch something else instead.

Looks like they really thought through their case once again, huh ?
 
2007-07-07 07:19:33 AM
Mac Savvy: It just becomes ridiculous when this is being used as a political issue while it is obvious by the amount of waste they are producing that slowing global warming isn't their objective- stealing as many votes as possible by appealing to young people is the motive.

Mac Savvy: This has never been an issue of conservatives vs. liberals.

You're sending some mixed messages about whether this is a political issue. And I'm curious... who exactly is stealing votes? Name names, please.
 
2007-07-07 07:20:26 AM
Random Reality Check: Yes, because it is definitely a bad idea to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use,

It's a bad idea for all business and commerce if we reduce without replacing it with another fuel source.

extreme example:
If people only have a 10 block radius from which to select their job, what will be the effect on the economy? How will that change their quality of life or choice of job?
 
2007-07-07 07:25:08 AM
100 Watt Walrus: 1) Global warming isn't happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. Nothing bad happens.

2) Global warming is happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. We possibly save future generations from a very ugly world.

3) Global warming is happening. People do nothing. Result: Some degree of ugly world - described often enough elsewhere that I won't bother here.


Your #1 is flawed, as unnecessary reduction in consumption of goods will hurt the US as well as the third world.

You also left out a #4: Global warming is real, and we try to stop it. We all die anyway except there are no more v-8's and charcoal grills. Somewhere Chuck Berry weeps.
 
2007-07-07 07:35:19 AM
Random Reality Check: Naturally, this would also not be a good idea to reduce our dependence on imported fuels

the problem with the neo-environmental movement is that it is living in an alternate reality.


We can reduce our dependence on foreign fuels and cut our carbon footprint by 70%. Build nuclear power plants. Pebble-bed. Like France.

The off-putting thing about this movement among whites with nothing better to do is that it's focus isn't on making technology that improves our lives and allows us to have more and waste less.
The new focus is on having less- either voluntarily or by governmental regulation.

Turn on the TV and we are being told by people that drug companies ' medicine is making us sick. We are told that the greatest threat to America is the gas engine, a thing that makes an individual self-sufficient in most cases.

People don't need to be guilted and conditioned into taking less. We need to be willing to invest in creating more, and slowly phasing out.
 
2007-07-07 07:49:14 AM
100 Watt Walrus:

1) Global warming isn't happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. Nothing bad happens.

So please tell me, what's so terrible about #1? Why NOT try to make the planet cleaner and greener?


We try to force the 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese back into peasant subsistence farming poverty, because if they industrialize to get a middle-class lifestyle they'd produce too much CO2. The end result is massive famine, disease, and war.
 
2007-07-07 07:56:06 AM
100 Watt Walrus: Norad Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness. The concerts don't make a difference, but if more people learn about reducing their carbon footprints as a result of the PR, that can make a difference. If you can't figure that out, it's you who belongs on the edge of the very tall building.

What is it with all these idiots who are anti-climate awareness? I mean, there are only 3 scenarios here:

1) Global warming isn't happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. Nothing bad happens.

2) Global warming is happening. People organize to help make the environment cleaner. We possibly save future generations from a very ugly world.

3) Global warming is happening. People do nothing. Result: Some degree of ugly world - described often enough elsewhere that I won't bother here.

So please tell me, what's so terrible about #1? Why NOT try to make the planet cleaner and greener?


Um, you forgot one scenario, the most likely one IMO.
4) Global warming might be happening, and man might be the cause of it, so in order to prevent what might possibly happen, we cripple our economy with taxes and ridiculous restricitions. We're all poor, but at least we feel better about ourselves.

/sniffs own fart
 
2007-07-07 08:03:12 AM
100 Watt Walrus: Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness.

So by your logic, if I want to raise awareness about sexual assault, I should go rape every hot chick in a 100-mile radius? True, I'm not stemming rape and I'm actually doing what I'm trying to stop, but "I'm raising awareness", right?
 
2007-07-07 08:05:10 AM
I'm going with #4 there I'm over it now, its just what I'm afraid of.

/we will reap what we sow, maybe a clean environment, but also be living in a box. A recyclable box, perhaps.
 
2007-07-07 08:05:24 AM
Hypocracy is usually a pretty lame charge.

Believe in Global Warming, but you exhale CO2, then you're obviously a hypocrite.

Don't believe in fur, but you're wearing leather shoes, you're a hypocrite.

You're allowed to incrementally try to make the world a better place.
 
2007-07-07 08:07:21 AM
Al Gore has taught me that you can waste all the energy you want if you plant a tree.

Therefore, I feel no remorse as I drive my Hummer.
 
2007-07-07 08:08:44 AM
It's most likely that if we do go forward with heavy taxation on emissions, it will all trickle down to the consumer anyways in price increases to make up for the shortfall. I find it hypocritical that some left-leaning folks advocate more money for the poor and the homeless, yet also advocate heavy taxation to create MORE poor and homeless.

/you think gas prices are high NOW?
 
2007-07-07 08:08:49 AM
The Billdozer: So by your logic, if I want to raise awareness about sexual assault, I should go rape every hot chick in a 100-mile radius? True, I'm not stemming rape and I'm actually doing what I'm trying to stop, but "I'm raising awareness", right?

Just be sure to take the bus on your way to your little rape-fest, dumbass. Or else you hate the earth.

How do you f*cking retards even turn on a computer ?

Explain how rape is the same as using transportation and media... go ahead, you little turd. You make me f*cking sick, you partisan little shiat.
 
2007-07-07 08:09:12 AM
How many of these celebrities drink bottled water all the time? I drink tap - because I'm cheap, really - but I've seen Madonna and other celebrities who carry their disposable water bottles with them everywhere.

Maybe they should start by example (if they really believe in something). Live in smaller houses, which don't need as much air conditioning and such. There are some "green" celebrities, like Ed Begley Jr. I don't know if global warming is true or not (the way it's being portrayed). But Ed Begley at least walks the walk.
 
2007-07-07 08:09:56 AM
The Billdozer: So by your logic, if I want to raise awareness about sexual assault, I should go rape every hot chick in a 100-mile radius?

Nah, by his logic they would hold a global music festival to raise awareness, though your method sure would raise a lot of awareness too.
 
2007-07-07 08:10:06 AM
I just find neocon talking points to be hilariously projectionist. We have a bunch of born-again extremists running the country and Rush has the audacity to say that wanting clean air is a *religion*? Come on, does anyone fall for this stuff?

/apparently.
 
2007-07-07 08:11:17 AM
Curious if the fairness doctrine supporters will allow for the same type of prime time program to rebut all the BS that is certain to flow from these idiots.

I'm thinking no.
 
2007-07-07 08:15:07 AM
Mordant: Explain how rape is the same as using transportation and media... go ahead, you little turd. You make me f*cking sick, you partisan little shiat.

it's cute how you and your buddies are ignoring all the good arguments in this thread and focus on the trolling ones.
 
2007-07-07 08:15:43 AM
But they mean well. Don't you people realize that liberals must be judged on their intentions, not on the actual results.
 
2007-07-07 08:22:31 AM
think of how much awareness will be raised!


If you want poor people worse off, support this legislation. Nothing hurts the poor more than regressive taxation.

It's not like your neighbor in the mansion next door cares if they pay $7 a gallon for gas. But cars are evil so it is OK for the greater good.

This happened about a decade ago, when 'well meaners' put in a nice little regressive taxation scheme on cigarettes.

Now poor people smoke cheap cigars,handrolled unfiltered TOPS and Basics. Your neighbor in the mansion next door sits on the back porch and smokes a $7 pack of cigs. But cigs are evil so it is OK for the greater good.

History is repeating itself.
 
2007-07-07 08:24:51 AM
I'm over it now:
Um, you forgot one scenario, the most likely one IMO.
4) Global warming might be happening, and man might be the cause of it, so in order to prevent what might possibly happen, we cripple our economy with taxes and ridiculous restricitions. We're all poor, but at least we feel better about ourselves.

/sniffs own fart


Cripple the economy? the ecenomoy is already crippled has been for at least 5 years
 
2007-07-07 08:26:26 AM
FriarTuck: think of how much awareness will be raised!


If you want poor people worse off, support this legislation. Nothing hurts the poor more than regressive taxation.

It's not like your neighbor in the mansion next door cares if they pay $7 a gallon for gas. But cars are evil so it is OK for the greater good.

This happened about a decade ago, when 'well meaners' put in a nice little regressive taxation scheme on cigarettes.

Now poor people smoke cheap cigars,handrolled unfiltered TOPS and Basics. Your neighbor in the mansion next door sits on the back porch and smokes a $7 pack of cigs. But cigs are evil so it is OK for the greater good.

History is repeating itself.



Last I checked nobody has to smoke. i mean I don't eve know how to reply to something that farking stupid.
 
2007-07-07 08:29:09 AM
zn0k: Mordant: Explain how rape is the same as using transportation and media... go ahead, you little turd. You make me f*cking sick, you partisan little shiat.

it's cute how you and your buddies are ignoring all the good arguments in this thread and focus on the trolling ones.


I'm not trolling, I'm being serious (for once). In my example, I would be doing something that directly contradicts what I'm trying to stop. This stupid Live Earth concert wants people to be more green conscious, but they are using a massive amount of oil and natural resources to put on their concert. That's being two-faced.

Also, Mordant, I know how to turn on a computer just fine. Probably better than yourself.
 
2007-07-07 08:33:03 AM
AlgertMan: Last I checked nobody has to smoke. i mean I don't eve know how to reply to something that farking stupid.

you are absolutely 100% right. Nobody has to smoke. But you can price out a certain portion of the population using regressive taxation to put into place your paternalistic goals.

Just like nobody has to drive an SUV. But you can price out a certain portion of the population using regressive taxation to put into place your paternalistic goals.

Should I put it in a bigger font, or is your arrogance coming through loud and clear?
 
2007-07-07 08:40:04 AM
BKITU: Dinki: Please, DIAF Smitty

Won't that release MORE carbon into the atmosphere? Think!


However old smitty might be, s/he's not made up of fossilized carbon. So by DIAF there would be no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
 
2007-07-07 08:40:52 AM
Norad:
Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

If you're over the age of 25 and think this makes a difference, please. Walk off a very tall building & make sure you fall face-first.


This concert may not eliminate global warming, but WILL influence some people to become more eco-friendly. You see, contrary to your negative and destructive beliefs, a lot of people will realize that it's important to take care of the planet we live in. Through awareness and action, we can hopefully secure a healthy world for future generations to live in.

Now you, on the other hand, can hopefully grow some testicular cancer AND choke on your own bile in the backseat of Dick Cheney's limo.

Good Day.
 
2007-07-07 08:42:29 AM
Samarkand's_300_Dollar_Camel_Tour: If only there was some way to broadcast a concert on some kind of interconnected network managed by computer systems...

The Internet?
 
2007-07-07 08:42:49 AM
HeeBeeJeeBee: Believe in Global Warming, but you exhale CO2, then you're obviously a hypocrite.

Again - That's not how it works.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report