Obama's China itinerary revealed
Shanghai Photographer Night at Dada
Racism in China: How poignant is it?
Heart Attack: Starring Jake Newby
Monitors remind classmates that love is publically unacceptable
The Washington Post reports that the former next president of the United States, Al Gore, is going to put on some massive live shows to help persuade the world to take global warming and climate change seriously:
At the news conference Thursday announcing this summer's ambitious "Live Earth" concerts -- designed as an exercise in "mass persuasion" about threats of global warming -- Al Gore described his vision: a 24-hour musical extravaganza across seven continents, featuring as many as 150 of the world's top recording artists, introduced by an army of "celebrities and thought leaders" (think: Cameron Diaz and Richard Branson), playing before a total live audience of a million people, and reaching 2 billion more via television, radio and the Internet on July 7.And in the next paragraph they tell us what cities will play host to these shows:
The foreign cities hosting the stadium-size concerts will be Shanghai, Sydney, Johannesburg, London, Rio and Kyoto, Japan.
The evolution of Al Gore has been anything but scientific. In some ways, we're almost glad he didn't win the presidency (even though he did), because the quirks and quidditties that made him the butt of jokes has seemingly blossomed into something that's a bit more maverick but definitely more interesting than what he would have been otherwise.
The Oscar-nominated film An Inconvenient Truth which we, lamentably, have not yet gotten around to seeing, is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Al Gore. In the spirit of the film, we'er going to get a copy of that DVD in Shanghai, rather than driving Honda mini-SUV down to a local Blockbuster Video in California.
Needless to say, getting one of these shows to be held here would be pretty darn cool, even if Bon Jovi doesn't show up. The battle against global warming gained some steam when lawmakers from countries around the world signed a pact that will attempt to further curb environmental degradation and climate change. China isn't sure whether or not they will agree to mandatory emissions limits just yet, arguing that as a developing country it should get some kind of slack and that developed countries need to take primary responsibility.
What Shanghai needs is a little bit of Snoop Dogg—the LBC and the PVG, hookin' back up? As they say in the suburbs, oh shiznit!
Merci beaucoup to Shanghaiist reader Anton for the tip!
Photo from rgdaniel's Flickr page
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
post to facebook
Yeah, Al Gore (aka Gorebot) will come to china and all of teh chinese and quite a few europeans will put all of the blame on the US.
www.siyansblog.blogspot.com
for more information about this concert
Mmm don't see the film. Great topic, poor documentary.
Oh great, another wild claim by Al Gore and his fans. This time he claims that humans are the cause of global warming by way of increased CO2 levels.
This is precisely the reason Mr. Gore is getting nominated for the nobel prize in peace rather than the nobel prize in science. No self respecting scientist is willing to tell the emperor that he has no cloths and he didn't invent the internet. Our current global warming trend isn't even higher than the last 3 warming periods on the planet over the last 450,000 years (Source: NASA). Yeah, Co2 levels are 4 times the norm but the earth hasn't had a greater acceleration of average temperature than the previous 3 warming periods.
Oh, by the way, as reported in National Geographic of Feb. 2004, humans and their waste emittings ways only contribute .08% to 0.10% of all Co2 emissions in the world. The rest comes from natural sources.
It's hard to believe that no one will resounding rebuke these claims. Such a shame that such a sham is being swallowed whole.
I love people who claim that global warming is "a debate" and there are two sides to it. Truth is, there is only one side to the issue. Is the debate on global warming like the debate on evolution, "within" the scientific community that so many biology classes in the United States can't teach it? And shenanigans to saying C02 emmissions have not changed...carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up by 35% since the industrial revolution and is expected to go up by another 72% - 157% in the next century, taking temperatures up anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees. what more information do people need before they start to value objective information over ideology? just a theory? sure it is, just like evolution is "just a theory." for god's sake the second law of thermodynamics is "just a theory" also, and this crap isn't some crazy tree hugging progoganda from moveon.org, it's direct from the EPA. information approved by your government. good thing no one reads it or there might be a panic.
it's unfortunate that scientists shot themselves in the foot trying to stay objective, and calling their ideas "theories," because it seems most people don't even know the definition of the word. now any idiot can come along and say "it's just a theory" and dismiss decades of scientific research as if it was a pizza delivered to the wrong apartment.
And can anyone explain to me why global warming constitutes a political issue? I don't want to drown, and I'm fairly sure that George Nukeuuulurrrr doesn't either. Though I'm sure he doesn't care about the black people.
Oh, and Exxon just *quietly* announced that is pulling ALL funding from its anti-global warming propaganda and "research," so even big business is starting to realize what needs to be done.
The main issue is whether GWAR is going to be a part of this thing.
It's vainglorious for humans to believe that they're the cause of the earth's survival and ultimately it's destruction.
Just because Exxon and other major companies start to throw money at the environmental movement doesn't mean that it proves the theory to be true. Correlation does not result in causation even if a lot of people are buying it.
This concept may be new to some but back in the 1970's the prevailing theories on climate change were touting the fact that we were about to go into a ice age by the 1990's.
Another concept that might be new some is that in 1971 it was claimed that the planet would run out of oil by 1986 based all the demand figures.
These falsehoods are swallowed whole and then forgotten as easily as they are concocted. Don't get me wrong I'm for responsible management of the environment. However, too much credence is given to bad interpretations of science.
Oh well...time for another round of bad interptations of plain jane science.