Sunday, July 8

Right Wing Attacks Live Earth ... and misses by a Planet

Today I wanted to talk about John Conyers on This Week saying the I-Word out loud in reference to the recent ARG poll indicating that well over 50% of the American people favor the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the fact that the White House has refused to let Sara Taylor testify in the DOJ hearings pushing Congress one step closer to a Contempt Citation.

I wanted to talk about Bill Kriston admitting that the timing fo the Libby commute was engineered to create a debate over the Clinton pardons, a debate which they happen to be losing badly.

But Instead I'm going to focus yet again on Live Earth and just how freaking desperate and deranged it has began to make the Climate Change Deniers Club ™ .

Now I've had my own criticism's of Live Earth's lineup which I posted yesterday, but I'm not going to revise that debate because in many ways it's beside the point.

What I felt while watching Live Earth is that it really isn't about which bands did and didn't play or what they played. It was about reaching out all across the world and lighting a potential spark inside BILLIONS OF PEOPLE which just might change and save this world from itself.

The shear scope of this event has been staggering. It has shown that we can rise to this challenge even though it may seem daunting and enormous. We can each take steps, take responsibility in our own lives to help make this world cleaner, greener and possible last just a little bit longer.

The fact that they've gotten a person like me, someone who'se been an extremely outspoken and acerbic critic of modern music for the past 15 years to finally put that all that aside - just for moment - with a concert this massive is a stunning accomplishment.

Let me tell you Micheal Mustow has nothing on me when it comes to being a brutal and vicious critic of modern music. If you think political debate can be rough-house knock-down drag-out tussle, just try discussing music with musicians sometime.

In fact, I'm certain that over the years there are people who are flat-out afraid to discuss their favorite (fill-in-the-blank emo/neo-punk/cool hair-cut/pop-tart/rough trade) band with me to this very day because as both a music performer, fan and critic for 20 years I'll probably verbally rip that band into tiny peices of confetti, then burn the confetti without batting an eye.

Today though, I think I'd use those ashes in a compost pile just so I could say they'd finally accomplished something worthwhile.

Anywho... instead of debating matters of musical taste and preference let us turn to the den of scum and villany housing the Climate Change Deniers who I think we should rank along side those who continue to deny the Holocaust, those who continue to deny that Saddam was not the Mastermind of 9/11, and the last remaining 26% percent (Newsweek 7/3) of us who continue to deny that the Sock-Puppet Presidency of George W.Bush and his D/s Top Richard B. "Shooter" Cheney is a Fucking Disastrous Blight on This Nation.

Last night on TFucker Carlson, one of these CCD mouth breathers from the oil and gas lobby powered "Competitive" Enterprise Institute actually said that ....

Al Gore has been looking for a world crisis his own life, where he can come through and "save the world" He wants to be a Superhero Action Figure. Basically he makes this stuff up [about global warming]. There is no scientific support for most his claims.

A Superhero? Y'mean like Commander Guy ™ !?

No Scientific Support?

This guy actually went on National TV - while the Live Earth Concerts were taking place - and said there's No Scientific Support for what Al Gore has been saying about Climate Change?

Is that not dumb as rocks stunning?

I mean most of these guys - like say, trusty ole' Fourthbranch - usually argue that the science is "inconclusive" or that the "debate is still ongoing", but this guy, Myron Ebell, just can't seem to contain himself. He's so full of crap it's coming out of eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

Then he changed tactics and began to actually argue in favor of conservation by claiming that the Live Earth concerts were a bad idea because they use too much energy!

Which side of this mental hopscotch game are these guys playing on?

So let me get this one straight - there's "No Scientific Evidence" to support Gore's Climate Change thesis that the emission of CO2 gasses into the atmosphere tend to create a greenhouse effect which is gradually warming our planet and threatening to drastically and radically change our eco-system - yet, you really shouldn't use up all that energy cuz it's like bad, mm,kay?

Has anyone ever taught this nitwit 4th Grade Science where they usually mention, even in your basic Neo-Christian Madrossa in the buckle of the bible belt where some seem to think the Sun revolves around the Earth, that Venus the cloud covered planet is actually hotter than Mercury which is closest to the Sun?



Before I get to the really Stupifying stuff, let's point out that the Live Earth organizers went to agonizing lengths to limit the amount of travel that performers would have to make in order to reach the show.

Live Earth strives to operate in as ecofriendly a way as possible: Several staffers are dedicated entirely to helping artists minimize the environmental impact of getting to and playing the shows, and each artist is given a "Green Handbook" of touring tips, such as where to get biodiesel for their trucks and how to offset carbon emissions. And in London, the team has been discussing a deal with Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic Airlines to reduce the carbon footprint for flights

Not only did they suggest that the artist shift to using bio-deisel for their tour vehicles - which Willie Nelson has been doing for years - they even used bio-deisel generators at the venues where possible. Also LED and compact florescent lights were employed for the show, which only use a fraction of the energy required by normal bulbs.

From the AP.

"This is going to be the greenest event of its kind, ever," former Vice President and Live Earth partner Al Gore told The Associated Press. "The carbon offsets and the innovative practices that are being used to make this a green event, I think, will set the standard for years to come."

The point is not to make the everything perfectly green, but simply to make events such as this - and for that matter most of what we do in our own private lives - greener and greener, as carbon neutral as we can get it bit by bit rather than all at once.

On this point Live Earth dramatically unveiled the lie beneath the rightwings more vicious canard. We don't have to live like Geico's favorite political-correction safe whipping boy - the caveman. We shouldn't be thinking that being Eco-friendly means living under a rock with a machette, a bic lighter and a few pairs of birkenstocks. We can LIVE IT UP and have a great big global party - and still be green. Living green isn't going to be bad for the economy and it isn't going to be bad for business. Well, to be fair, it might be really bad for the brown businesses like the ones who fund Myron and his sociopathic ilk, but then they deserve it don't cha think?

And of course, that's exactly what scares Myron - Sugardaddy Warbucks might have to go on a diet. So naturally he lashes out at those damn dirty liberals who are a threat to his meal ticket.

Global warming is a creation of the left, and the left is all about re-distributing income. We have to become an awful lot poorer, and the people in China have to become a little bit poorer to solve this problem according to the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore.

Yeah, we're all going to be in the poor house if we adopt cleaner emissions standards. Oh wait, most of us already are in the po' house - so much so we can't even afford to buy another vowel for the rest of the word. So gee, what's there to really lose then, eh?

And speaking of that completely non-existent Scientific Evidence...

On May 26th, James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute Of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels.

I suggest that a "scientific reticence" is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

And then there's the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change which released three reports.

One on the Science of Global Warming.

In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

One on the Impacts of Global Warming, not only on natural resources but also on our global security.

If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism. There is also domestic reasons. If higher-intensity hurricanes create a lot of damage, that does in some sense have security-implications as well. There is a whole range of factors. Water scarcity is another one. I’m not saying all this translates into direct threats to the U.S., but conflict anywhere has some implication for security in the U.S. As the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth, it is for the U.S. to take a global view of what strategically might minimize the possibility of threats to national security.

And a third on the relatively Modest Cost of implementing Green Friendly measures to combat Climate Change.

Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

Not that the facts have ever really gotten in the way of chronic deniers like Myron and his pals.

Fox News: "Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?"

Rush Limbaugh: "[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience."

James Inhofe: "Global warming is an alarmism. It’s a type of a hoax. The reality is that a cap on carbon is a cap on the economy."

I'm thinking these guys are going to be spending time in the history books being compared to their bestest buddy Ahmadinajad for their incredible level of denial, nigh unto a pathological addiction to bullcrap.

But y'know maybe that's just me.

I'm just saying...


No comments: