What global warming? Hell just froze over... NBC is showing Metallica :D

One thing also to point out is that UK TV directors seem to cut and direct music very differently from US directors. When comparing Pop Idol/The X Factor with American Idol the cut-rate on the UK version is MUCH higher, with far shorter shots and a lot more crash zooms, and whip pans used in UK coverage. Think this isn't just a US/UK thing - as most Scandinavian music coverage is also quite close to UK coverage in style.

Yea we discussed that during the 4th of July shows. American audiences don't realize how conservatively their shows are produced in comparison to Europe. Not a bad thing, I study a lot of European directors (Hamish Hamilton, Bruce Gowers, Julia Knowles, David Mallet, etc) and they are all very good but it is a completely different aesthetic. There were several points in this show however where the director/vision mixer either weren't on the same page or were lost. Also having the vision mixer execute the shots in Britain as opposed to the director in America changes things a bit too. You can cut more when the switcher is doing it as opposed to having to be told like in America.

So the Dave Matthews Band bus is running biodiesel now - great! I hope they fixed that problem with dumping the septic tank onto sightseers in Chicago river boats!

Roger Waters on NBC and Bravo :p

Of course Bravo is airing the full set.

John Mayer joins the Police ... this is bloody great!

Will NBC show all 25 minutes of the Police!!!

What a great way to finish!! Thanks again CTV HD!!!

Is that Confetti biodegradable? :p

The Police, John Mayer, and Kanye West on the live web feed. "Message in a bottle".

And now my friends the concert is over. Total live coverage on Broadcast TV and Cable in the USA = 0 :p

Anyone know what happened at the end of the Sydney concert with the stage lights? Crowded House was playing and all the lights went out mid-song, but the PA system/everything else was still working fine (thank goodness someone smart designed the electrical loading for the concert, BTW).

It actually made the end of the concert really great, when everyone came out on stage for the finale in the dark. Pretty awesome that they kept playing.

Got to love the hyprocracy of this. These bands / politicians telling everyone to conserve while they hop in their private jets to fly back to their mansions. Great picture though!

The Roger Waters set gave me chills! I so wish that he and Gilmour could work things out.

Save our Sausage!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!

Is that Confetti biodegradable? :p


Confetti? I was aghast at the cute girls drinking beer out of PLASTIC cups! OMG.

Lenny on Bravo and NBC.

Cameron Diaz on as they go from her intro to the last song of the night.

It's good to see Madonna grindup on stuff.

Only 5 minutes of The Police on NBC. :confused:

Kanye West is all over UHD right now. He's certainly an enthusiastic stage performer.

Got to love the hyprocracy of this. These bands / politicians telling everyone to conserve while they hop in their private jets to fly back to their mansions. Great picture though!

Yes. madonna should fly coach.

you are correct, sir.

:rolleyes:

No Spinal Tap?:(

I hope we get replays on UHD, I missed Roger Waters.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Smashing Pumpkins on UHD while Black Eyed Peas is on NBC!!! I can't watch both at once!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( :( :( :(

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Smashing Pumpkins on UHD while Black Eyed Peas is on NBC!!! I can't watch both at once!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( :( :( :(

That's what a dual tuner DVR is for! I'm recording both UHD and NBC. Not that there will be much to skim from this from what I've seen off and on through the day.

:(

For a show about the destructive nature of greenhouse gases, there's sure alot of car commercials during NBC's airing.

I'm still quite impressed at the amount of HD and - given the circumstances - the quality of the production hasn't been that bad. Certainly if you've re-watched Live Aid recently this is a LOT better....
Easy now! (Unless you're talking about the bad audio and microphonic cameras on the BBC coverage from (the old) Wembly.)

I'll give you that Live Aid really had only two major venues, but I am also impressed at the quality of the coverage this time. I really didn't see much of Live 8, and any Woodstock other than the 1969 version doesn't count (even if it was HD.)

Even in 2007, this sort of stuff ain't easy!

So, there's this guy named Sting on UHD right now. Some of you might of heard of him. He's with 2 other guys. I think they used to be called "The Police" a really long time ago. I've only vaguely heard of them, I think, they were some kind of obscure old rock band or something I hear. ;)

And now my friends the concert is over. Total live coverage on Broadcast TV and Cable in the USA = 0 :p
Does it really matter? You can bitch about what they put on when (but please not on an HD forum) but what difference does it make if it's live or not? Nothing is live today, unless you're in the stadium, and the audio is even late there! If live is so good, turn in your PVR/VCR.

This was so ... quaint.

does anyone have a song-by-song synopsis of the UHD coverage (ok, just the order of the artists)? 22 hours is a lot to FF through to find a few good songs....

Better once the switching to SD stopped. Except for the rows of small dots that popped up on the screen occasionally.

I agree that there should have been live stuff on UHD as advertised. Maybe the next one will have each venue live on a separate HD channel.

In the interest of the Fairness Doctrine, a few links presenting another perspective...

Basic References:
Hostages to a hoax (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf) (PDF)
Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9860B8B0-E7F2-99DF-32AE7FF8D8922266&chanID=sa007)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/)
IceCap (http://icecap.us/index.php)

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" - a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labeled "Global Warming Deniers"
Science, not politics (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5b824408-9df0-4189-86fc-cf6465bf0aa8&p=1)
Statistics needed (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)
The original denier: into the cold (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)
End the chill (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=216ca730-10f0-4614-9692-fc37d99cbac3)
They call this a consensus? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af)
The limits of predictability (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)
Unsettled science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a)
The ice-core man (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6)
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)
Polar scientists on thin ice (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)
The sun moves climate change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7)
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)
Read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
Forget warming - beware the new ice age (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278)
Little Ice Age is still with us (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1&p=1)
Fighting climate 'fluff' (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e)

Other References:
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)
The Global Warming Myth (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=1)
Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (http://newsbusters.org/node/13541)
IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore's View of Global Warming Consensus (http://newsbusters.org/node/13833)
Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence (http://newsbusters.org/node/13698)
CO2 Science (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b930 3-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=)
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html)
New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm)
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 (http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm)
Global Warming as a Religion (http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm)
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (http://www.mises.org/story/2571) (By David Evans)
Global Warming: it's not caused by greenhouse gases says academic (http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard)
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (http://www.john-daly.com/)
GREENIE WATCH (http://antigreen.blogspot.com/)
Why Global Warming Would be Good for You (http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html)
Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux (http://www.unc.edu/~sstaff/images/craytemp.jpg)
Global Warming Primer (PDF) (http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/mar2007.pdf)
Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience (http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html)
Fiddler On The Roof (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=2674059116 24139)
Debating Global Warming (http://www.zmag.org/debatesglobalwarming.html)
Climate Resistance (http://www.climate-resistance.org/)

Biggest tacky/tasteless moment from NBC.

It was either on CNBC or Bravo.

The cut to a church in Rome.

Very solemn and had a childrens choir with orchestra.
Singing a heartfelt song.
Probably religious.

During this "special" moment of Live Earth NBC decides to hype some piece of
crap tv show called "AMERICAN GREED".

The bug looked to take up the bottom third of the screen.

It stayed on a while.

Could not believe it.
Welcome to bottom of the barrel "NBC".

And yes a global LIVE 24 hour concert and we got ZERO broadcast live performances.

Ironically the Today show can give American's a live concert but with the millions
of bucks they have in gear they can't give America any live footage for this historic concert.

Way to go NBC!!!

Let's see more of those "super bugs".
You sure can do those right!

bjf

Thought Foo Fighters were excellent.

Melissa Ethridge's political message via her song was excellent.
I'm not too excited by her these days musically but this performance
was full of fire. And again good ole NBC edited it all out and just had
her abrupt here's Al Gore intro. He then says how fantastic her performance
just was. But "we" on NBC saw nothing. Good job NBC.

The Keith Urban and Alicia Keyes (sp?) duet was great.
Probably the best thing eithers done rockin' out.

The Australian Missy Higgins was very good.
Especially her backing up Crowded House and Paul Kelly.
She looks like she'll be big in the future.

Crowded House sounded great.
And they kept on playing even with no spotlights on stage after the first song.

In Tokyo the holographic of Al Gore was really cool.

And the drumming start of the UK concert was great.
Especially when the Queen drummer played the rhythm to We Will - We Will Rock You.

Lots of high points musically.

And it certainly will help enlighten the youth and hopefully everyone.
Not sure if it will get the politicians moving but if the masses demand it
then it certainly has been good.

Al gets my congrats and thanks for a great bunch of concerts.

bjf

I liked UHD's streaming approach a lot better than NBC's need to have a host and backstage interviews. UHD's approach was more about the event and the purpose, than about the artists.

I have to hand it to Linkin Park. I don't like them all that much on their records, but they played a great set in Tokyo and the crowd was totally fired up for their performance. Evidently Linkin Park have a lot of Japanese fans.

The frontwoman for Blue King Brown (the opening act in Sydney) is really damned hot.

Foo Fighters absolutely brought the house down. They were the best performance by far.

Bon Jovi are always so smug about how awesome and cool they know they are. But the fact of the matter is, we all wish we could ooze cool out of every orifice the way Jon Bon Jovi does. They did a great set.

Chris Cornell was awesome. I don't have anything else to say.

Easy now! (Unless you're talking about the bad audio and microphonic cameras on the BBC coverage from (the old) Wembly.)


Yep - the LDK5s were suffering a bit at Wembley for Live Aid. Having recently re-watched some of the DVDs of the original concert - the coverage at both venues was very much of its time - as should be expected. Things have got better since - with more dynamic coverage and better quality cameras, more flexible mountings, and the ability to deploy more cameras.

The sound has also got better it seems - though ISTR that BBC Radio did the Live Aid sound, not BBC TV? (ISTR it caused a bit of a BBC in-house political row at the time - as radio and TV mixes can be quite different)


I'll give you that Live Aid really had only two major venues, but I am also impressed at the quality of the coverage this time. I really didn't see much of Live 8, and any Woodstock other than the 1969 version doesn't count (even if it was HD.)

Even in 2007, this sort of stuff ain't easy!

Believe me - I know it isn't easy...

All in all I enjoyed about 2 hours of the 22 hours.... not too shabby.

It's unfortunate that we even need an event like this to teach us how to live responsibly.. even more unfortunate all that inspiration the event caused will be forgotten by 99% of those over the next few days and weeks.

Still, it's better than nothing, I suppose.

The fast national over night ratings for the NBC segments of the concert are available at

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10367387&&#post10367387

Yep - the LDK5s were suffering a bit at Wembley for Live Aid. Having recently re-watched some of the DVDs of the original concert - the coverage at both venues was very much of its time - as should be expected. Things have got better since - with more dynamic coverage and better quality cameras, more flexible mountings, and the ability to deploy more cameras.

The sound has also got better it seems - though ISTR that BBC Radio did the Live Aid sound, not BBC TV? (ISTR it caused a bit of a BBC in-house political row at the time - as radio and TV mixes can be quite different)

Believe me - I know it isn't easy...
ABC also had LDK5 cameras, but was lucky to be able to deploy them well off stage. I believe they used Ikegami cameras with diode gun plumbicons on/near stage, with much better results.

I don't know who actually did the sound at Wembly for Live Aid (BBC TV or Radio) but it was a disaster. What came over here with the video coverage was full of major flaws. I heard that even though there was a deal in place for a concert album from the UK venue (unlike the US venue) the quality was such that it was never released. Was any of the UK coverage released commercially (before the commemorative set?)

The fast national over night ratings for the NBC segments of the concert are available at
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10367387&&#post103673872.75 million viewers? Ouch! Even worse, there is no CW on Saturday nights to take last place.

I imagine anyone who cared set the DVR and then went out on Saturday night. I was pretty burned out on it after watching a few hours earlier on UHD.

I remember reading that during Live Aid, the interaction between the house and the BBC was so badly executed and the audio crew was having such problems that the concert organizers stepped in halfway through and told them their focus should be radio and TV and the house was a low 3rd.

I remember reading that during Live Aid, the interaction between the house and the BBC was so badly executed and the audio crew was having such problems that the concert organizers stepped in halfway through and told them their focus should be radio and TV and the house was a low 3rd.

That would fit - house vs radio vs TV - great recipe...

I hope the Live Earth people will do the right thing and release the full concerts from all the venues on both HD media formats.

Proceeds should go to the proper agency for getting rid of the greenhouse effect, whoever that may be.

I hope the Live Earth people will do the right thing and release the full concerts from all the venues on both HD media formats.

Proceeds should go to the proper agency for getting rid of the greenhouse effect, whoever that may be.

It'll never happen.

We'll be lucky if we get the edited, censored "pick-and-choose" type sets like Live Aid and Live 8.

It'll never happen.

We'll be lucky if we get the edited, censored "pick-and-choose" type sets like Live Aid and Live 8.


too bad, they should offer customized package deals, even if just for download

example, you pay $30 and you pick two full sets and 3 15 minute highlight reels of any of the bands. It'd be easy enough to do, and the do-it-yourself videos would let all different types of music fans become buyers.

I guess no chance of a rebroadcast on Universal HD

It's not great quality, but it looks like the concerts are up on the main site.

http://liveearth.msn.com/concerts

Well I recorded the entire UniversalHD broadcast from Dish. Roughly ~100gig. I thought the PQ from Dish was very good. It was averaging 8Mbit, which for mpeg4 is very good. Now I have the daunting task of chopping it up into song/artist segments so I dont have to FF through it all to find the ones I want to keep.

I never got to see the coverage from NBC, but it seems UniHD covered most of the big acts complete sets. I wasn't really expecting much live coverage anyways since there were so many performances at the same time. Too bad I dont have a C-Band dish setup since they were broadcasting the HD backhauls from most of the venues. I guess if you really want live HD you need to invest in FTA gear :)

As a side note, I dont really understand all the hostility towards the message of this event. You might not agree with the political views of the organizers, but what issue do you have with educating people about how to reduce waste, reduce our energy usage, and recycle?

As a side note, I dont really understand all the hostility towards the message of this event. You might not agree with the political views of the organizers, but what issue do you have with educating people about how to reduce waste, reduce our energy usage, and recycle?
- I don't think it's necessarily the message that's the issue, but rather the messenger. I find it hard to take someone seriously that has a dozen houses, drives around with an entourage of SUV's and flies around in a personal jet. But that's just me. :)

That being said, I really liked some of the performances, particularly the Foo Fighters, who are always really good.

- I don't think it's necessarily the message that's the issue, but rather the messenger. I find it hard to take someone seriously that has a dozen houses, drives around with an entourage of SUV's and flies around in a personal jet. But that's just me. :)




Then focus on the consensus of the 1000's of scientists in just about every country in the world who signed the various UN reports. The arguments amongst scientists is essentially over, just working on the details, e.g. how many feet is the water level going to rise - up to 20.

Complaining against people who are actually out there trying to make a difference just because they happen to be rich or have a big house is a false argument and disingenuous. One of the most wealthy presidents was FDR, who did more to alleviate the plight of the poor and powerless than any other U.S. president. The two richest guys in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both liberal Democrats who have given away billions in trying to make the world a better place. So what if Gore lives in a big house? So do a lot of other rich guys who do nothing more with their money than trying to amass more of it just to keep score. He's raising awareness of the issues all over the world and that will have a far bigger impact on preserving the environment and initiating change than his personal carbon footprint. But the latter gives cheap ammunition to his critics who don't see global warming as a problem anyway. They will, of course, when their beach houses start tumbling into the sea, but by then it will be too late to do much about it. Gore's one of the good guys.

Gore's one of the good guys.

No offense arch, but had Pol Pot been a registered Democrat, you'd have thought he was one of the "good guys." :D

No offense arch, but had Pol Pot been a registered Democrat, you'd have thought he was one of the "good guys." :D

Not true, not fair, and not relevant, but thanks for chiming in sangs. :rolleyes: There are good guys in the world and there are bad guys in the world. Their actions speak much louder than their words, or their political affiliation.

Almost all convicted felons would vote Democrat, if they could (per an interesting recent survey). Political affiliation is largely meaningless when discerning "good guys." Actions count, as archiguy profoundly observed.

Complaining against people who are actually out there trying to make a difference just because they happen to be rich or have a big house is a false argument and disingenuous.
I fail to see the logic in your statement. In essence, Al Gore et al, don't have to implement the measures they advocate for everyone else because they have a good excuse. The rationale is that they need to produce 100x the carbon footprint of the average person because they have a larger cause. Similar to Rosie O'Donnels' reasoning for having her kids protected by an armed bodyguard while she advocates strict gun control for the rest. Her stance is that because of her celebrity status she needs to deviate from the standard she advocates. How about politicians that squash school choice initiatives yet send their own kids to private school?

You know what, I actually agree with their reasoning and choices. The problem is that when you want to demagog something you always speak in generalities and then create exemptions when it gets personal. Why would Rosie deny me a handgun to protect my family for my own reasons. I accept hers. I can accept that traveling by jet is the only practical way for entertainers to move between the coasts so why can't I drive a large minivan to provide transportation to my family in comfort and safety? I don't want a windmill farm in sight of my backyard for the same reasons Ted Kennedy doesn't. Should I be allowed to spread a bag of fertilizer containing phosphate on my lawn? What if it's only used to establish a new lawn - which would reduce the effects of erosion.

My question is what makes one excuse better than the other and who gets to decide? Who specifically in your neighborhood would you classify as an abuser? Have you confronted them on it? Do you accept their reasoning? What should be done to them if they don't conform to your standard?

Saw a headline today about changing cows' diets to reduce methane emissions. That's interesting, since bovine flatulence accounts for more greenhouse gases then every car made since the discovery of the Otto cycle. (Of course, we don't blame the cows, because they don't pay taxes...)

Then focus on the consensus of the 1000's of scientists in just about every country in the world who signed the various UN reports. The arguments amongst scientists is essentially over, just working on the details, e.g. how many feet is the water level going to rise - up to 20.

Consensus? There is no scientific consensus on this. And what does consensus have to do with science, anyway? Science deals in fact. Or, at least it should.

Consensus? There is no scientific consensus on this.
Good to know the public is informed on this matter. :rolleyes:

But, Bluto, you're supposed to FEEL like the climate is in crisis. Don't you want to save the planet? Such emotional appeals are the approach taken by the "catastrophic climate change" crowd.
You are, of course, exactly right about science. Science is observation. Conclusions should be limited to what the observations can sustain. Therefore, "consensus" on what some people interpret from observations actually has no bearing on their veracity.

Good to know the public is informed on this matter. :rolleyes:
Actually, I've been impressed that the public is well-informed enough to reject some of the mis-information being put out on this matter.

Actually, I've been impressed that the public is well-informed enough to reject some of the mis-information being put out on this matter.
Yeah, misinformation like: "there's no consensus." LOL

Saw a headline today about changing cows' diets to reduce methane emissions. That's interesting, since bovine flatulence accounts for more greenhouse gases then every car made since the discovery of the Otto cycle. (Of course, we don't blame the cows, because they don't pay taxes...)
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/Deltoid/cowfart.jpg

:)

Yeah, misinformation like: "there's no consensus." LOL

There are many scientists that offer differing viewpoints, thus there is not a consensus. But those scientists are either censored, shouted down or considered quacks because they don't toe the party line.

It's the same old story really. Not taking sides, but it pretty much happens with every hot button issue.

Not true, not fair, and not relevant, but thanks for chiming in sangs. :rolleyes: There are good guys in the world and there are bad guys in the world. Their actions speak much louder than their words, or their political affiliation.

Sorry arch. I've been dormant around here for a while. You woke me up!

Anybody catch the miniscule TV ratings for this event? The Stanley Cup Playoffs had more viewers.

Sorry arch. I've been dormant around here for a while. You woke me up!

Anybody catch the miniscule TV ratings for this event? The Stanley Cup Playoffs had more viewers.

The ratings for what? NBC's coveraqe or for all of the 8 channels that broadcast parts of it in the US combined?

NBC's primetime - the only ratings that anybody cares about. (In the ratings biz anyway.)

I’ve gone both ways with this subject. At present, I’m keeping an open mind and thinking for myself while I try to weed through the BS by both sides. I don’t believe mankind or the world will end in 20 years, but I also think it’s foolish not to look at the affect the Industrial Revolution has had on humans and the planet. Ol’ Mother Earth is a very resilient and adaptive planet and has been for lots of years, and I’m not overly concerned that she can’t handle what has been thrown her way since the IR began. I do think it’s prudent we are very careful and look at what those affects are and whether we need to change our living habits in order to ensure a long and prosperous future for the planet and everyone that’s on this voyage she is providing us. I don’t believe its time to panic and change everything tomorrow, but I also don’t believe it’s very wise to take what Corporate America says - and that’s where the majority of Global Warming naysayers come from - without looking at their motivation (that isn’t hard to figure out). I can’t help but think back to the tobacco industry’s scientific stance when they were under scrutiny, and how lobbyists now run this country. It doesn’t give me a great deal of trust and confidence they’re doing what is in the best interest for the citizens of America.

I don't think anyone expected boffo ratings, unless it's Elvis coming back TV concerts will always be at the bottom.

There are many scientists that offer differing viewpoints, thus there is not a consensus.

Actually, there is only one major scientific organization coming out against human induced global warming. So, no there's no consensus among all scientists, but this is a consensus among MOST scientists. In fact, even that one organization is considering changing their policy, because a large number of their members disagree with the policy. http://www.aapg.org/proposed_climate.cfm

Here are some notable scientific organizations that recognize global warming as happening and being amplified by human actions. It seems to me that when organizations like these have come to such a unanimous consensus, we should listen.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/

American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html

U.S. National Research Council
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/

American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Astronomical Society
http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.php#climate

American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html

The Institution of Engineers Australia
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/representation/policy-positions/climate-change.cfm

American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Geological Society of America
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

American Chemical Society
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf


Here's an interesting article on scientific consensus
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf


Those of you who think global warming isn't happening or think humans aren't involved, please feel free to convince me and others- I don't wear blinders.

Actually, there is only one major scientific organization coming out against human induced global warming. So, no there's no consensus among all scientists, but this is a consensus among MOST scientists. In fact, even that one organization is considering changing their policy, because a large number of their members disagree with the policy. http://www.aapg.org/proposed_climate.cfm

Those of you who think global warming isn't happening or think humans aren't involved, please feel free to convince me and others- I don't wear blinders.


Hey, I was just pointing out that there wasn't a consensus and that it wasn't really fair for the other poster to blast somebody for pointing out as much.

I think we all know there is some sort of global warming going on, but the catastrophe nuts lose me - and many others - with their hyperbolic predictions of imminent doom and gloom. (Oddly enough, for a group so concerned with the world's well-being, many of them refuse to acknowledge global terrorism as a threat, but I digress.) And let's not forget that as recently as the 70's some of these same organizations were trying to convince the world of global cooling, or whatever it was called back then.

I still don't see how mass concerts help to save the planet, but I hold no grudges against those that do. Cheers!

Global warming has been AIDED by humans..NOT caused by humans. Amazing how even Al Gore's `history' on gloabl warming showed that it goes in cycles eyt humans are to take the blame for this round?

Global warming has been AIDED by humans..NOT caused by humans. Amazing how even Al Gore's `history' on gloabl warming showed that it goes in cycles eyt humans are to take the blame for this round?

Again, as I pointed out in an earlier post, there's no argument that the planet goes through heating and cooling cycles; it certainly does. But these "natural" cycles typically occur over tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. The thing that makes this different is that an equivalent rise in global temperatures has occurred during only the last hundred years (coinciding with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution), with the curve going exponential during the last 20 or so. That just doesn't happen "naturally" unless there's some catastrophic cause, like asteroid impact or eruption of a supervolcano. In this case, humans provided the "catastrophe".

To say that man's dumping of billions of tons of man-made carbon into the atmosphere has nothing to do with this is pretty silly at this point. That's what the scientists are trying to say, and what the defenders of the status quo keep trying to supress. Which, of course, is even more silly - those that get behind the effort to get more "green" (at this relatively early stage of the problem being taken seriously) are the ones who are going to reap the economic harvest deriving from the solutions. That's why the pressure on the Republicans to get onboard is not coming from politicians, it's coming from industry. Which is what we who follow politics expected. ;)

Global warming has been AIDED by humans..NOT caused by humans. Amazing how even Al Gore's `history' on gloabl warming showed that it goes in cycles eyt humans are to take the blame for this round?

Yes it goes in cycles, until the 20th century, when it pretty much just goes up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png/250px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record)

It's a pretty ridiculous argument to think that the consensus is not legit.

I guarantee you that there is A LOT more money out there for scientists to disprove man's impact on global warming then there is for those to go along with the IPCC. OIl companies, automobile manufacturers, power plants, etc.. would LOVE for some reputable scientist to do some studies indicating that our emissions somehow can't make an impact. They would pay handsomely for such studies.

To think that the leading scientists in the world are all in cahoots to make us all change our ways is simply conspiracy theory and talk-radio nonsense. The very idea is ludicrous.

Skepticism is good, but ya gotta look at the science sooner or later.

To think that the leading scientists in the world are all in cahoots to make us all change our ways is simply conspiracy theory and talk-radio nonsense. The very idea is ludicrous.

But where else would the far right get their "facts"? Books? :D

Skepticism is good, but ya gotta look at the science sooner or later.

Amen, brother.

While I don't think we're gonna get DAY AFTER TOMORROW-style disaters anytime soon, it's only logical that our filth-spewing factories, gas guzzling Earth-F**kers (aka - the mega SUV) and more tightly packed landfills are not making our planet nicer for us or any other lifeform.

Yes, the planet warms and cools over time. But wouldn't logic--not political slant-- again dictate that by putting waste products and chemicals into our air/water/soil that would not be and were not part of the global equation prior to the Industrial Revolution would not have a negative effect on our global environment?

If we don't do something about how we treat our world soon, Mother Nature will take care of the situation on her own. And I'm willing to bet we will like her solution far less than any we could have come up with.

You who believe in the catastrophic climate change predictions better not invest in the stock market. One month, you'll be convinced you're gonna go broke within three years, and the next month you'll be convinced you'll quadruple your investments in mere months. The changes in climate are similar to the consistently-changing market: up, then down.
Counter this argument with the observation that the market's cycles have been coupled with a steady increase over time, and I will merely point out that the same does not hold for the climate. The analogy doesn't stretch that far.
Regardless, folks are free to believe all the climate hysteria they want. Just do not suggest tax revenues be raised for some solution, "or there will be...trouble."*

*Robocop

I don't think it's the Day After Tomorrow style disasters that are going to plauge us- it's the seemingly little things like shifting migratory patterns with birds, coral reef bleaching, changing reproductive cycles of species, loss of habitat, etc. which can seriously disrupt the food chain- um, which we sit on top of.

Here are some examples:
http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/photoallevents.html

You who believe in the catastrophic climate change predictions better not invest in the stock market. One month, you'll be convinced you're gonna go broke within three years, and the next month you'll be convinced you'll quadruple your investments in mere months. The changes in climate are similar to the consistently-changing market: up, then down.
Counter this argument with the observation that the market's cycles have been coupled with a steady increase over time, and I will merely point out that the same does not hold for the climate. The analogy doesn't stretch that far.


That's a poor analogy. The data is pretty clear by this point that temperatures are rising at a clip that's not normal, nor is it linear. It's the acceleration that proves the premise. There is little argument on global warming among reputable (i.e. not on a partisan payroll) scientists; but there is plenty among laymen when it comes to the cause. For that, you have to exercise some common sense. Or, not. ;)

The changes in climate are similar to the consistently-changing market: up, then down.


Yes, they both go up and down, good job. There's one similarity.

To think that the leading scientists in the world are all in cahoots to make us all change our ways is simply conspiracy theory and talk-radio nonsense.

I’m going to have to think long and hard on this one. Do I believe in educated scientists, or do I believe in the most listened to person on talk-radio whose education is listed below?

He attended Southeast Missouri State University, where he earned a "D" in a speech class. (Some contend it was an "F".) He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything," even a modern ballroom dancing class. This would have normally made him eligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War but he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to an undisclosed medical problem thought most likely to be a pilonidal cyst located on the base of his spine.

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

Any more questions as to why people around the world laugh at the intelligence level of this country?

^Uh oh. Once the name of the Antichrist has been invoked, it's usually curtains. :p

^Uh oh. Once the name of the Antichrist has been invoked, it's usually curtains. :p


Before the cutain closes due to He Who Must Not Be Named being mentioned, I gotta share...........

My father in law worked @ KFBK in Sacramento while RL was on-air there. After it was announced that his show was going to go national, a lunch or dinner (can't remember which) celebration in RL's honor was given.

When asked by another co-worker what RL felt he owed his success to, he stated that "The listeners" are the reason. "Because they are so stupid, they'll believe anything and get fired up over anything I say on-air".

True story. My father in law (who was friendly with RL @ the time) and everyone there heard it.

Chew on that for a while, Dittoheads. Your Fearless Leader thinks you are all idiots and thanks you for tuning in.

I’m going to have to think long and hard on this one. Do I believe in educated scientists, or do I believe in the most listened to person on talk-radio whose education is listed below?

Again, we're talking about the same educated scientists that said we were headed toward another ice age during the 70's right?

Why on earth do some people think that scientists are infallible? I don't have the time or desire, but we could fill up over 100 pages in this thread with scientific facts, studies and reports that were either altered, tweaked or debunked entirely. You don't even have to go back that far to find examples.

Yes, we're in a period of global warming right now. Nobody knows where we'll be in 20 or 30 years - nobody.

^Uh oh. Once the name of the Antichrist has been invoked, it's usually curtains. :p
Hey, you’re the one who hates prophecies of threads being closed. Now take that back. :D Beside, I didn’t bring up TR. I was only responding as to one of many ways people get their information and how utterly uninformed they are in listening to one side. That goes both ways.

Again, we're talking about the same educated scientists that said we were headed toward another ice age during the 70's right?


It was a comparison, sangs. Not saying scientists are infallible, just that I would believe them over...

Again, we're talking about the same educated scientists that said we were headed toward another ice age during the 70's right?


I don't know... are we? I can't imagine that no new scientists have entered climatology in the last 30 years. I also can't imagine that with faster supercomputers, new earth studying satellites, the Internet for sharing data and ideas faster, and fewer disco songs on the airways, the science of studying our environment hasn't improved exponentially.

It must be that they're all the same scientists with the same data using the same technology. Those scientists must be crazy! I bet they're the same scientists who said the world was flat!

I don't know... are we? I can't imagine that no new scientists have entered climatology in the last 30 years. I also can't imagine that with faster supercomputers, new earth studying satellites, the Internet for sharing data and ideas faster, and fewer disco songs on the airways, the science of studying our environment hasn't improved exponentially.

It must be that they're all the same scientists with the same data using the same technology. Those scientists must be crazy! I bet they're the same scientists who said the world was flat!

Thanks for helping to prove my point with that last sentence. Remember how many people thought that Columbus fellow was crazy for going against the scientific grain? I'm just saying...

It was a comparison, sangs. Not saying scientists are infallible, just that I would believe them over...

Yeah, I know. Sorry to overreact. I just get tired of hearing/reading anything that gets presented as fact simply because some scientist or group of scientists said so. As if they're never wrong.

And for the record, not all of us with conservative tendencies listen to that fat windbag. :)

And for the record, not all of us with conservative tendencies listen to that fat windbag. :)
Ah, a man of true intelligence. Well, until it comes to choosing a pro football team. ;) :D

For the record. People generally believed the world was round by the time of Columbus. They just didn't know how big the planet really was.

Frankly, I'm not worried about global warming. It wasn't but a few years ago that all of these 'scientists' were warning of a new Ice Age. Besides, scientists can't accurately predict what the weather is going to do next week, much less 30 years from now.

If it stayed in the realm of "science," I'd have little concern how many of them agreed. (BTW, my signature line directly refers to the kind of groupthink on display in this context.) But when it moves into the political realm, and then lawmakers start trying to raise my taxes to solve this "crisis," I get concerned. I'm not willingly buying snake-oil, and I don't want to be unwillingly paying for it either.

The problem is that when you want to demagog something you always speak in generalities and then create exemptions when it gets personal. Why would Rosie deny me a handgun to protect my family for my own reasons. I accept hers. I can accept that traveling by jet is the only practical way for entertainers to move between the coasts so why can't I drive a large minivan to provide transportation to my family in comfort and safety??
- This was exactly my point earlier. Do as I say, not as I do. I don't have any problem with the message and I don't think a lot of other people do either. It's just laughable that the same people cooling million dollar homes that only a few people live in are asking the unwashed masses to conserve.

Back to the concert, why did the performers in Australia wear "No Nuclear Energy" t-shirts? Nuclear energy is more "green" then fossil fuel plants. Is there some debate down under going on about this?

Back to the concert, why did the performers in Australia wear "No Nuclear Energy" t-shirts? Nuclear energy is more "green" then fossil fuel plants. Is there some debate down under going on about this?

Well, the moderate and rational approach to reducing greenhouse emissions (as well as particulate emissions) is to turn to alternate sources of energy, and nuclear is currently the best option on the table.

Unfortunately the "environmental movement" and I use the term loosely since there really isn't an organized movement.... has had it in their head that nuclear power is bad since the 70's or so.

I've worked in the environmental field for 10 years, working for non-profit activist groups for a few years, and as an environmental consultant for land developers for the last 5 or 6. So I've seen run into a few extremists. Personally I've been a big proponent of nuclear for years, even in my "activist" days, and I took a lot of heat for it. The reality is that modern day nuclear power is far safer than it was in the 70's, while modern coal and oil burning power plants still are big polluters. (they basically pollute less per kilowatt hour, but population growth has pretty much negated the improved standards).

the bottom line is that if you believe global warming is as dire as it's made out to be, nuclear power would put a huge dent in our contributions. (It would also benefit alternative automobiles like electric cars and plug-in hybrids) Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is always a nice bonus too.

hell, if France can pull off a successful nuclear power program, so can we.

Unfortunately, people like to claim sierra club and such hold up nuclear power, which is slightly misleading. PEOPLE hold up nuclear power plant development (all ages, political persuasions etc) it's NIMBYism. Nobody wants a nuclear power plant near their house, so they whine to their city councilmembers, their congressmen, and they call up sierra club or NRDC to file suit on behalf of their members. Sierra club is simply a tool of NIMBYism.

So while it's the best option for now, IMO, I don't see it happening on any large scale.. t-shirts or not.

end rant.

Consensus? There is no scientific consensus on this. And what does consensus have to do with science, anyway? Science deals in fact. Or, at least it should.

When the facts become clear, scientists reach a consensus. The facts are clear despite and the fast majority of scientists do agree not only that global warming is coming but it is happening. Yes there are a few naysayers but in a small minority.

When the facts become clear, scientists reach a consensus. The facts are clear despite and the fast majority of scientists do agree not only that global warming is coming but it is happening. Yes there are a few naysayers but in a small minority.

Right, that's the bottom line. The evidence is clear and has been getting clearer for a few decades now. Glaciers all over the world are retreating, the snows are disappearing from Kilimanjaro and Fuji, vast sheets of Anarctic ice are breaking off, these things cannot be dismissed. Soon, the oceans will start rising and beachfront property will start moving inland. That's when most of the rest of the naysayers will fade away, I suspect. Frankly, I don't remember any scientists speaking of "a new ice age" back in the 70's. I heard Carl Sagan give a lecture in the mid-eighties on the alarming warming trend he saw. He was considered something of a maverick back then. Now, he seems prescient.

One poster says that all this talk of mitigating climate change is fine until it affects his taxes. I would point out that his taxes are already subsidizing, to a frightening degree, the current status quo. The price of a barrel of oil is far more than the current market price of $70/bbl if one takes into account the military costs of protecting it. We're coming up on half a trillion dollars "invested" in making Iraq safe for the oil companies, not to mention all our other commitments in the region. If there were a national mandate to wean ourselves off of the oil teat within, say, 10 years, all those costs could be funneled back into the search for alternative and renewable energy, with a percentage going back into taxpayer's pockets. Instead, we continue to subsidize fossil fuel consumption that's as much of a dinosaur as the source of the oil itself. It's lunacy.

And I agree, nuclear should be on the table. Like another poster says, if France can do it, so can we.

Right, that's the bottom line. The evidence is clear and has been getting clearer for a few decades now.

Yes because in the 70s we had an `ice age' forthcoming... :p

Yes it goes in cycles, until the 20th century, when it pretty much just goes up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png/250px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record)

wikipedia in this discussion? :p

I probably worded myself wrong with simply saying `aided'...

I nominate post 344 as the most factually incorrect post of this entire thread. It's chock-full of declarative statements, but almost all of them or incorrect.
The concluding opinion, however, seems very sound and supportable.

wikipedia in this discussion? :p


Sure, why not?
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarm1999/Images/1999_fig1_tn.gif
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/images/temp_data.jpg
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Graphics/HumanInfluenceIndustrial.png
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001_figs/fig2.gif

I nominate post 344 as the most factually incorrect post of this entire thread. It's chock-full of declarative statements, but almost all of them or incorrect.
The concluding opinion, however, seems very sound and supportable.

Why thanks UK; considering the source, I'll consider that an endorsement. BTW, there wasn't one thing in that post that was factually incorrect. Not. One. Thing. I'll be happy to send you my extra copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" so that you can learn something about climate change. Just PM me with your address. I'll consider it a public service. ;)

And do you honestly feel that our immense military presence in the middle east, financed ever more unwillingly by the U.S. taxpayer, has nothing to do with subsidizing the cost of oil? That it adds nothing to the true cost of a barrel of oil? Do you really believe that?

Frankly, I don't remember any scientists speaking of "a new ice age" back in the 70's.
Let me help you a little bit with that one - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html. Especially get a chuckle out of the last statement. That "ice age" trend continued well into the mid 80's and we're still here.

Yeah, misinformation like: "there's no consensus." LOL

Speaking of misinformed... *L* :rolleyes:

Let me help you a little bit with that one - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html. Especially get a chuckle out of the last statement. That "ice age" trend continued well into the mid 80's and we're still here.

Good article. It showed how scientists in the 1970's saw changes in the environment and had no idea why they were happening but decided it would be a good idea to study our climate and what influences climate change. Now we should ignore them?

Let me help you a little bit with that one - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html. Especially get a chuckle out of the last statement. That "ice age" trend continued well into the mid 80's and we're still here.

That's the nice thing about scientific hypothesis - they change as required as new data becomes available. Even then, the theory of a coming "ice age" wasn't universally accepted (see my report about Carl Sagan's lecture in the mid eighties - he certainly didn't interpret the data that way). But the science of meteorology has progressed a great deal since then. Certainly, you won't find any current climate scientists predicting the dawn of another ice age any longer. The overwhelming amount of data, and simple observation, we have now doesn't support it; quite the opposite.

That's the nice thing about scientific hypothesis - they change as required as new data becomes available. Even then, the theory of a coming "ice age" wasn't universally accepted (see my report about Carl Sagan's lecture in the mid eighties - he certainly didn't interpret the data that way). But the science of meteorology has progressed a great deal since then. Certainly, you won't find any current climate scientists predicting the dawn of another ice age any longer. The overwhelming amount of data, and simple observation, we have now doesn't support it; quite the opposite.
I was specifically addressing your statement that you didn't remember any scientists from the 70's predicting an ice age. Fact is, there were as the article points out.

I was specifically addressing your statement that you didn't remember any scientists from the 70's predicting an ice age. Fact is, there were as the article points out.

I'm not doubting there were such predictions; just that they were so rare and infrequent that I hadn't heard about them (I wasn't as tuned into the issue then either, being so much younger, so I share blame for not noticing). It's part of ancient history now anyway from a meteorological perspective, and that's the more important point.

I was specifically addressing your statement that you didn't remember any scientists from the 70's predicting an ice age. Fact is, there were as the article points out.

I didn't see anyone predicting an ice age in that article. They noticed a cooling trend during from the 1940's to the 1970's... which did happen (see temp. trend graphic I posted earlier)... and said they didn't know why it was happening but "vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate." It said scientists estimated that a 1% drop in sunlight could send our climate down the road to another ice age. But they were not predicting that would happen, just saying it's possible that it could happen.

Excerpts from a Michael Crichton essay, "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous" --

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
Nobel prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive he would have supported this effort.*
All in all, the research, legislation, and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant.


The theory Crichton is describing in the excerpts above is not Global Warming or Catastrophic Climate Change, although the same observations would apply. The theory he's actually referring to is eugenics.


*Seen any of these stickers on Priuses: "What Would Jesus Drive?"

The "ice age" article from TIME just shows that scientists did see weird climate trends back then and thought more study as to the "why" was needed. Now, those and other scientists have a better understanding of whats going on and why it's happening. As another poster put it, that's the beauty of scientific hypothesis.

But for the folks who maintain climate change/global warming, etc is a farce or just can't stand Al Gore or "lefty" celebrities "telling you how to live your life"....to throw these old articles up to prove their point is silly.

It's kind of like that little douchebag Kirk Cameron. Remember him from GROWING PAINS? Well he found Jesus some time back (which in and of itself is fine). Now he's got some evangelical show on cable that gets in the faces of "people on the street". Uses some really illogical arguments to make his point to non-Christians. And anyone who is not an evangelical, in his and his partner's view, they are either non-beleivers (and headed to Hell) or, if they are religious--just not the same religion--they are following "false" religions. I wish giant packs of Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Buddists, etc would gang up and beat the living s**t out of this punk...ASAP. All of those groups are following "false" relgions and are even called such on the show (WAY OF THE MASTER on TBN, BTW, if anyone's interested) during the opening credits.

OK...sorry to go off. I do have a point. Not deriding religious beliefs here, but when arguing against evolution (Cameron and his cohort on their show are hardcore creationists...provable and observable science be damned), they bust out cartoon illustrations of animals--like combos of frogs and monkeys and what not--to claim that if evolution was "real", why didn't any of these things like "monkey-frogs" or whatever evolve, too. Kind of like saying..."where's the scary ice age predicted 30 yrs ago if we humans are screwing up our planet with our gas sucking cars and polluting industries?".

Big. Giant. Idiots. (I mean Cameron and his preacher buddy.....not anyone here on the forums! :) Let's be clear on that, please).

Also in agreement in the nuke power issue. You want energy with fewer emmisions? Nuclear is already available. As others have said, France is doing it and has been for some time. They haven't had a Chernobyl-style problem, ever. If we can figure out what to actually do with the waste and keep our environment safe in the process, it's our quickest and easiest option for lowering CO2 emmisions here in the US.

*Seen any of these stickers on Priuses: "What Would Jesus Drive?"

Jesus doesn't need to drive...he's the son of God. :D

One bumper sticker I really want to see ('cause what it says is true and would piss a lot of folks off)............

"JESUS WAS A LIBERAL".

Yes it goes in cycles, until the 20th century, when it pretty much just goes up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/250px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png/250px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record)

Oh NO!!! That shows an increase of almost 1 degree Celcius!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!

If one is looking for a good history of climate research including what happened in the 1970's and how we got to where we are today read this:

Historical Summary
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

More in-depth:
(history of temperature trend)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
(the public and climate change)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm

It's kind of like that little douchebag Kirk Cameron. Remember him from GROWING PAINS? Well he found Jesus some time back (which in and of itself is fine). Now he's got some evangelical show on cable that gets in the faces of "people on the street". Uses some really illogical arguments to make his point to non-Christians. And anyone who is not an evangelical, in his and his partner's view, they are either non-beleivers (and headed to Hell) or, if they are religious--just not the same religion--they are following "false" religions.

Off topic, but I heard something just yesterday about the Vatican issuing a new decree, or whatever they call it, claiming that any religion other than Roman Catholicism is a false religion, including all the Protestant varieties. That ought to go over real well in the Heartland. Fun stuff, huh? :p

I'm not doubting there were such predictions; just that they were so rare and infrequent that I hadn't heard about them (I wasn't as tuned into the issue then either, being so much younger, so I share blame for not noticing). It's part of ancient history now anyway from a meteorological perspective, and that's the more important point.
Rare and infrequent? It was a relatively large subject back then and I was very aware of the issue while not even having a particular interest in it. True, it didn't get as much publicity as the current "crisis" but remember, nothing did. There were 3 network TV stations, no email, no IM, no cell phones, few CE devices. Talk radio was mostly radio-tradio, news and farm reports. The technology wasn't there to do coordinated, worldwide publicity events either.

Ancient history? My goodness, it was only 20 years ago. I suppose if one is only 25 that may seem ancient but compared to age of the earth, climate, the meteorological record it is very recent. I can understand your concern but discounting history leaves you susceptible to only considering arguments from your own personal experiences.

I do find it funny that Live Earth/save the planet/climate change discussion got steered toward religion. Actually, the belief in catastrophic climate change does seem quite religious in fact, and there are certainly zealots on the global warming front to further the parallel. But no church of which I'm not a member asks me to donate, so let's keep it that way, CCCCC.*

*Church of Catastrophic Climate Change Consensus, "C5" for short

I didn't see anyone predicting an ice age in that article. ..... It said scientists estimated that a 1% drop in sunlight could send our climate down the road to another ice age. But they were not predicting that would happen, just saying it's possible that it could happen.
Come one, you're parsing and being hyper-semantic. The obvious point of that article, and much discussion at the time was that we were entering a period of Global Cooling or the more media-friendy, sensationalistic phrase of "new ice age".

Oh NO!!! That shows an increase of almost 1 degree Celcius!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!

Did you know we're only 1 degree celcius from being the hottest we've ever been in 1 million years? Global temps have risen an average of 0.2 Celcius per decade in the last 30 years.

Here's a study by NASA climate scientist James Hansen on the aff
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1.pdf
(except)
"It has been estimated that a global warming of 3°C over
the 21st century could eliminate a majority (
60%) of species on
the planet. That projection is not inconsistent with mid-century
BAU effects in another study or scenario sensitivity of stress
effects. Moreover, in the Earth’s history several mass extinctions
of 50–90% of species have accompanied global temperature
changes of
5°C."

Here's another an article that discusses that research in ways a bit easier to understand
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/climate-change-one-degree-till-the-point-of-no-return/

Ancient history? My goodness, it was only 20 years ago. I suppose if one is only 25 that may seem ancient but compared to age of the earth, climate, the meteorological record it is very recent. I can understand your concern but discounting history leaves you susceptible to only considering arguments from your own personal experiences.

Once again, the science of meteorology and the sheer amount of data that's been observed and collected in the last 20 years has advanced considerably and progressed the discussion. The same rapid advancement has happened in a number of other scientific disciplines as well, from biology to genetics to physics; should we discount them as well, and cling to theories that are now hopelessly out of date? I think I read somewhere that the sum total of man's knowledge is now doubling every 7 years or something. We got to try to keep up! :)

The "ice age" article from TIME just shows that scientists did see weird climate trends back then and thought more study as to the "why" was needed. Now, those and other scientists have a better understanding of whats going on and why it's happening. As another poster put it, that's the beauty of scientific hypothesis.
Yes, to be sure, and 30 years from now we will look back on today and wonder how we were able to exist with such primitive forecasting tools.

Not deriding religious beliefs here.....
No, no, of course not! The Kirk Cameron rant didn't exactly address global warming spot on.

mtiffee, the quote from James Hansen is instructive, if it is accurate: "Moreover, in the Earth's history several mass extinctions of 50-90% of species have accompanied global temperature changes of +/-5 degrees C."
The conclusion that kind of data would support is not consistent with the messages I'm hearing from C5.
(But how 'bout that? My newly-coined acronym, C5, resembles that catastrophic change from eons past, 5C. Am I good, or what? :wink:)

I believe there is less of an argument over whether or not the average temperature on the planet has increased.

The real debate is whether or not Human behavior has caused it, contributed to it, or can do anything about it. Frankly, I tend to lean towards 'NO', in all three cases.

Sound reasoning, Rutgar. However, for those who believe differently, they have an opportunity to do their part to save the planet: Stop breathing.

Sound reasoning, Rutgar. However, for those who believe differently, they have an opportunity to do their part to save the planet: Stop breathing.

So, we can finally conclude that "sound reasoning" for you means discounting all the available data and conclusions of almost all the world's scientists studying the issue, and holding up a one-sentence rebuttal (which you happen to believe, against all evidence to the contrary) as being ultimately correct. And, of course, your last sentence is terrific advice and certainly improves the quality of the debate. Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

Come one, you're parsing and being hyper-semantic. The obvious point of that article, and much discussion at the time was that we were entering a period of Global Cooling or the more media-friendy, sensationalistic phrase of "new ice age".

Yes, I am, but what point are you trying to make by pointing out the discussion in th 1970's?

I personally believed that you were feeling skeptical since a large voice from the scientific community was saying one thing 30 years ago and now saying another. I was only pointing out, that given the data available to them at the time, which was very limited, that's the way it looked back then. The scientists back then also said they needed much more research into the climate and the human effects. Also, there were many differing opinions back then with little bits of data here and there supporting each one. Now, while there are different opinions, there is a much more unified voice from the scientific community, with much more data backing it up.

arch, I already posted about conclusions based on observations. Maybe you ignored that. My reply to Rutgar was about reasoning and beliefs. And that last sentence was funny, no matter our varying beliefs on this issue. The absurdity of my suggestion for C5 zealots to "stop breathing," coupled with the fact that it would actually address the claimed crisis directly, makes it solid humor, in my humble opinion. So, you're welcome. :rolleyes:

arch, I already posted about conclusions based on observations. Maybe you ignored that.

Conclusions based on observation, facts, and data all support global temperature rise caused by man made activity including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), as well as a number of other reports including one by our own EPA.

Besides all of that mountain of scientific consensus, common sense also dictates that the dumping of billions of tons of man-made carbon into the atmosphere is the only possible cause of the abnormal and extraordinary warming trend we now see, since no supervolcanoes happen to be in an eruption period right now. Gee, I think I might have mentioned that before. :rolleyes:

Please UK, feel free to keep burying your head in the sand if you like; just stop doing it here. There are plenty of places on the net where your increasingly minority opinion will be welcomed with open arms. This ain't one of 'em.

arch, thanks for repeating your dogma. You are wrong, but you are free to be wrong. Until it affects me.