Global Warming

An Inconvenient Concert Series

|

Drudge links to a Financial Times story about Al Gore's soon-to-be-announced plans to host a series of linked concerts in July that will call attention to global warming. The organizers

are promising a line-up of artists to "dwarf" that of the Live8 and Live Aid concerts, thought to be branded under the name "SOS".

One person close to the event said yesterday: "The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the issue itself is bigger.

"Live Aid was about asking people to stump up money, this is about effecting systemic change.

"The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action."

These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less.

It will indeed be momentous if rock stars pledge to use EnergyStar products and curtail their jet-setting. And convince Lemmy to change Motorhead's name to Hybridhead.

More here.

The last big rockapalooza, Live 8, in which pop stars told people to push governments to raise taxes for foreign aid, didn't go over well. For more on that, go here and here.

The greatest rock cause of all time? Hands down, it's Ramone$ Aid, a.k.a. Hands Across Your Face:

NEXT: The Beauty of Mandatory Minimums: You Don't Have to Ask for Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “It will indeed be momentous if rock stars pledge to use EnergyStar products and curtail their jet-setting.”

    Nice? Yes. Momentous? Not really.

    Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a drop in the overall bucket.

    The majority of the gasses are produced through energy consumption for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation, construction, and home-use operations. It is through changes in these areas that greenhouse emissions will be brought under control.

    If Al Gore’s activism causes a single power plant to reduce its CO2 emissions by 1%, he will have more than made up for every mole of CO2 he has ever caused to be emitted.

  2. You are getting information from the Drudge Report? Are you serious? It is just a link, but you are going there, looking for things to blog about? I come back to reason.com every once in a while, but seem to get scared back away by something like this. Drudge is far from “reason.”

  3. Personal pledges to reduce emissions? Sounds like some sort of religious revival meeting.

  4. The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the issue itself is bigger.

    …this is about effecting systemic change.

    The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action.

    I think they got those quotes from Google Clich? Search. This concert could take self-righteous limousine liberalism to a whole new dizzying, glittering level. Get Obama to speak and there will be spontaneous orgasms from Boston to Berkely. Coax Babs Streisand to warble a tune and I myself just might faint.

  5. joe:

    So you’re not one of these liberals who scold people for driving SUVs? These Battlecar Galacticas are okay-dokey with you?

  6. Somehow this reminds me of Red Wedge, the leftie Brit-rocker anti-Thatcher tour from the late ’80s. The manager of one of its primary acts offhandedly described it to me as “rich pop stars for socialism.”

    And which rock band led the way with responsible automobile-emissions policies? Chicago, of course. (Remember, they started out in 1968 as the Chicago Transit Authority — until the real Chicago Transit Authority complained about it.)

  7. “The majority of the gasses are produced through energy consumption for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation, construction, and home-use operations. It is through changes in these areas that greenhouse emissions will be brought under control.”

    I, too look forward to a day when an average person such as myself must live with mandatory caps on my “carbon footprint” while people like Serj Tankian, who are smarter, more talented and better looking than yours truly, are allowed to blast around the country on private aircraft in order to change people’s hearts and minds by playing B.Y.O.B. at top volume.

    Rock stars. Is there anything they don’t know?

  8. LOL @ Ron Bailey’s post. In other news, in turns out the AEI *wasn’t* trying to bribe scientists. I’m Shocked! Shocked!

  9. The greatest piece of charity in rock and roll of all time was when one of my friends body-checked an emo kid at a Violent Femmes concert just so he could get me Gordon Gano’s guitar pic.

  10. Sex, drugs, rock’n’roll….and activism? Nahhh!

  11. “You are getting information from the Drudge Report?”

    Matt,
    Please let us know who the “acceptable” information providers are?

    Twerp!

  12. “Personal pledges to reduce emissions? Sounds like some sort of religious revival meeting.”

    Appropriately put since environmentalism has become a new religion. We are expected to accept without questioning. Climatologists who dare to question the conventional wisdom are threatened with having their certifications taken from them.

  13. Hey, the editor’s here!

    If Al Gore’s activism engineers and scientists just doing their jobs cause power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions by 1%, he they will have more than made up for every mole of CO2 he has ever caused to be emitted. done infinitely more good than joe’s jackass, non-stop, intarweb lecturing.

  14. “Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a drop in the overall bucket.”

    Time was when the left embraced the notion that those that were not part of the solution were part of the problem.

    I’m glad to see we’ve moved beyond that phase!

  15. “their exploits amount to a drop in the overall bucket.”

    Yes, but if it saves even one drop it will be wirth it.

  16. Even though CEOs and other high-paid managers receive exorbitant salaries, their share of corporate income amounts to a drop in the overall bucket.

  17. Can’t run the video as I’m at work.

    Is that the Russian Navy Chorus? The uniforms look right.

  18. that song by the ramones is pretty awesome. the video’s pretty sweet too.

  19. Schempf,

    How about those that are truthful, logical, and reasonable. How about those that avoid sensationalizing everything, and also name calling, Schempf.

    When I read news and commentary, I look for integrity. Drudge severely lacks it. Reason uses Druge, I begin to question Reason’s integrity.

  20. Somehow this reminds me of Red Wedge, the leftie Brit-rocker anti-Thatcher tour from the late ’80s. The manager of one of its primary acts offhandedly described it to me as “rich pop stars for socialism.”

    Red Wedge turned Paul Weller off to politics. It served its purpose.

  21. “How about those that are truthful, logical, and reasonable. How about those that avoid sensationalizing everything, and also name calling, Schempf.”

    And I would assume you be the arbiter of all things truthful, logical and reasonable?

    Tool

  22. So, Matt, what you’re saying is that Nick should have linked directly to the original story on the Financial Times website, without a hat tip to Drudge, even if that’s how he found the story?

    Since I’ve done just that, I can assume that you find my integrity unimpeachable.

  23. I can hardly wait to hear about the gigantic carbon footprint these concerts are going to have. The private jets, the people driving to the concert, the power for all the lights, cameras, PA systems, the gigantic cloud of smug emissions. . . .

  24. It’s good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort of hypocrisy…for example, debating policy over the government-created internet.

  25. Dan T:

    Libertarians believe in a small government. Not “no government”. Those little creatures are called “anarchists”.

    If need be, I can explain that to you using sock puppets.

  26. It’s good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort of hypocrisy…for example, debating policy over the government-created internet.

    True, the government may have started it, but it was all those pr0n-selling computer-geek entrepreneurs who made it what is today.

    (Yes, yes, I know, don’t feed the trolls)

  27. RC:

    As you suggest, the earth is indeed rapidly warming due to all the hot gas coming from Algore and his ever-increasing domesday cult.

    I swear, the way so many people are gleefully jumping on this bandwagon, it’s like something out of “Invasion of the Bodysnatchers”. The next thing you know, if you dare utter something to the contrary, a mass of people would suddenly point at you and screech hideously.

  28. Dan T:

    Libertarians believe in a small government. Not “no government”. Those little creatures are called “anarchists”.

    Just like global warming activists want less carbon emissions, not “no emissions”.

  29. Just like global warming activists want less carbon emissions, not “no emissions”.

    In general, I’ve found most persons with libertarian leanings are content to allow other people to do what they please, as long as they don’t harm anyone else.

    In contrast to Global Warming Believers, who want to force everyone else into suitcase-sized cars while they still drive to Hollywood parties in Navigators or Hummers.

    Global warming activists certainly do want to reduce carbon emissions — just everyone else’s, not their own.

  30. “Global warming activists certainly do want to reduce carbon emissions — just everyone else’s, not their own.”

    Yeah, but it’s ok, because, like, they care??

  31. In contrast to Global Warming Believers, who want to force everyone else into suitcase-sized cars while they still drive to Hollywood parties in Navigators or Hummers.

    Time to turn off Fox News.

  32. mediageek,

    You miss the point. Of course if Nick would have began the story with just the link, things would be different. What his citing Drudge told me was that when he goes to start a blog and look for information, he includes a person that has absoultely no journalistic credability at all, being kind. That worries me, and I feel should it sould worry you as well.

    Schempf,

    Keep up the ad hominem, it works well for you.

  33. What his citing Drudge told me was that when he goes to start a blog and look for information, he includes a person that has absoultely no journalistic credability at all, being kind.

    Because we all know that a link from a site that has no journalistic credibility drains the credibility from the linked-to story as well.

    Or something.

  34. Time to turn off Fox News.

    What Fox News? I was watching Entertainment Tonight’s Oscar coverage.

    Those scantily-clad Hollywood bimbos in high heels didn’t drive to the party in hybrids or electric cars, and they sure as hell didn’t walk there. Not they way they’re dressed.

  35. R C Dean,

    I will try this once again. I had no problem with the story, or linking to it. But, I do question journalistic sources, of which Drudge is not a good one. Therefore, I question Nick’s integrity for using Drudge, a person, as a source, for anything. He or anyone that writes for a magazine, SHOULD NOT use Drudge as any kind of source whatsoever.

  36. Mark Twain once complained that a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That’s been the case of late in the climate change debate, as political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t pay homage to their “scientific consensus.”

    Last week the London Guardian published a story headlined, “Scientists Offer Cash to Dispute Climate Study.” The story alleges that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, collected contributions from ExxonMobil and then offered climate scholars $10,000 so they could lobby against global warming legislation.

    Another newspaper, the British Independent, picked up on the story and claimed: “It has come to light that one of the world’s largest oil companies, ExxonMobil, is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPCC’s assessment.” (The IPCC is the United Nations climate-change panel.)

    It would be easy to dismiss all this as propaganda from British tabloids, except that a few days ago the “news” crossed the Atlantic where more respectable media outlets, including the Washington Post, are reporting the story in what has become all too typical pack fashion. A CNNMoney.com report offered that “a think tank partly funded by ExxonMobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.”

    Here are the facts as we’ve been able to collect them. AEI doesn’t lobby, didn’t offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn’t come from Exxon.
    What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a “range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension.” Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

    AEI President Chris DeMuth says, “What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI — and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester — to pay individuals” for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI’s budget over the last decade.

    As for Exxon, Lauren Kerr, director of its Washington office, says that “none of us here had ever heard of this AEI climate change project until we read about it in the London newspapers.” By the way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming.

    We don’t know where the Brits first got this “news,” but the leading suspects are the reliable sources at Greenpeace. They have been peddling these allegations for months, and the London newspaper sleuths seem to have swallowed them like pints on a Fleet Street lunch hour.

    So, apparently, have several members of the U.S. Senate. Yesterday Senators Bernard Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry sent a letter to Mr. DeMuth complaining that “should these reports be accurate,” then “it would highlight the extent to which moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy discussions. . . . Does your donors’ self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?”

    Every member of AEI’s board of directors was graciously copied on the missive. We’re told the Senators never bothered to contact AEI about the veracity of the reports, and by repeating the distortions, these four Democratic senators, wittingly or not, gave credence to falsehood.

    For its part, Exxon appears unwilling to take this smear campaign lying down. Bribery can be a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime may well be defamation. A company spokesman says Exxon has written a letter to the Independent demanding a retraction.
    One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it.

  37. The Boston Globe’s Ellen Goodman starts off a column about global warming on a loopy note:

    On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.

    Wow, Ellen, thanks for sharing! But a few paragraphs later she tries to make a serious point and ends up making a serious moral and intellectual error:

    I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

    No, Ellen. Let’s not “just say” it. Before we make a truly invidious comparison, let’s think a bit, shall we?

    On our shelf sits a book called “The House That Hitler Built.” It is a 380-page study of Nazi Germany, written by Stephen H. Roberts, a professor of modern history at the University of Sydney. Roberts spent 16 months in Germany and neighboring countries between 1935 and 1937. “My main aim,” he explains in the preface, “was to sum up the New Germany without any prejudice (except that my general approach was that of a democratic individualist).”

    The substance of the book is alarming, although the tone is calm and detached–so much so that it is eerie to read with the knowledge of what happened in the years after October 1937, when it was published. One 10-page chapter is devoted to “The Present Place of the Jews.” At the time Roberts wrote, the persecution of Jewish Germans was well under way:

    At present, the German Jew has no civil rights. He is not a citizen; he cannot vote or attend any political meeting; he has no liberty of speech and cannot defend himself in print; he cannot become a civil servant or a judge; he cannot be a writer or a publisher or a journalist; he cannot speak over the radio; he cannot become a screen actor or an actor before Aryan audiences; he cannot teach in any educational institution; he cannot enter the service of the railway, the Reichsbank, and many other banks; he cannot exhibit paintings or give concerts; he cannot work in any public hospital; he cannot enter the Labour Front or any of the professional organizations, although membership of many callings is restricted to members of these groups; he cannot even sell books or antiques. . . . In addition to these, there are many other restrictions applying in certain localities. The upshot of them all is that the Jew is deprived of all opportunity for advancement and is lucky if he contrives to scrape a bare living unmolested by Black Guards or Gestapo. It is a campaign of annihilation–a pogrom of the crudest form, supported by every State instrument.

    When Roberts published his book, Kristallnacht was more than a year away; the ghettoes and death camps were further still in the future. Roberts described what he witnessed as “a campaign of annihilation,” but he did not foretell the multiplication of its brutality in the ensuing years. Had he somehow managed to do so, he would be a prophet today, but he might well have looked like a crank at the time.

    Which brings us back to Ellen Goodman. Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn’t believe him. They would be, to use Goodman’s phrase, denying the future. But would they be “on par” with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?

    That seems a stretch. There’s an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.

    This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don’t have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion–but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman.

    Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)

    Above all, we can’t stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?

  38. Because we all know that a link from a site that has no journalistic credibility drains the credibility from the linked-to story as well.

    It’s the dreaded “Drudge cooties”!

  39. MNG,

    “So you’re not one of these liberals who scold people for driving SUVs? These Battlecar Galacticas are okay-dokey with you?” Pay not attention to the whooshing sensation on your scalp. C’mon, dude, I had one little, very simple point, and you missed it. Next!

    “Hey, the editor’s here!” How flattering of your to take an interest. Next!

    mediageek, no one is saying rock stars shouldn’t reduce their carbon footprints, too. Next!

    Graphite,

    The overall amount of money paid is salaries isn’t a problem. Next!

    RC Dean, I can hardly wait for you to be completely silent when they announce they are offsetting their emission with carbon credits. Next!

    So many people eager to refute my point, absolutely no ability to do so. As usual.

  40. “Our skepticism rests largely on intuition.”

    Our confidence rests largely on facts.

    That’s why we’re winning, and you’re losing.

  41. Get it guys? It’s like joe’s a doctor and he’s giving us all our examinations. Why that’s just so clever and hilarious! HO HO HO HAHAHAHAHA!

  42. I guess that makes me proctologist.

  43. Please leave Lemmy and Motorhead out of your stupid pissing contest.

  44. That’s why we’re winning, and you’re losing.

    Watch that hubris, joe. You know what it did the Republicans. 😉

    If you’re “winning”, where are your “victories”? Is the Bush Administration ready to ratify Kyoto? Hell, are the Europeans able or even willing to meet their Kyoto goals? Have China and India agreed to curtail their economic development?

    From what I’ve seen, the only “victory” you’ve achieved is that Global Warming is the new Cool Thing. And having glitzy Hollywood celebrities and virtually every major Media outlet on your side doesn’t necessarily translate into legislative victories (just ask any gun control activist).

    Indeed, I’d say we’re at the beginning of the end of the Global Warming Cool Cycle. Now that Global Warming Believers think they are unchallenged save by a tiny minority of Greedy Oil Barons and Toothless Talk-Radio Listeners they’re ready to take control: The Cootie-infested Drudge site had an article about Nancy Pelosi calling for “mandatory emissions caps”.

    Boy, that’ll really resonate with the American people. Karl Rove must have fixed his Mind Control Ray Machine.

    Proof is in the pudding, joe. If the Democrats in Congress can pass mandatory carbon emission caps AND win control of the White House and Congress in 2008, I’ll agree that you have won. Otherwise, it’s all a bunch of hot air.

  45. ‘If you’re “winning”, where are your “victories”?’

    Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to the realm.

  46. “Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to the realm.”

    Wanna buy a pet rock?

  47. Joe,
    “Public awareness is key to the realm.”

    ONDCP couldn’t agree with you more

  48. No wonder joe’s such a pain in the ass.

  49. “mediageek, no one is saying rock stars shouldn’t reduce their carbon footprints, too. Next!”

    That was certainly one implication of your original statement, and given the all-too-obvious history of celebrities spouting off all sorts of “do as I say, not as I do” idiocy, it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

    Also, I just have to point out that taking a sarcastic comment at face value in order to refute it just makes you look like a humorless putz.

    But, hey, whatever jiggles your nuts.

  50. “Seen any news in the past week? Public awareness is key to the realm.”

    So, how’s that whole “free tibet” thing going for Richard Gere?

  51. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers

    The hysteria of the global warming alarmists is actually much closer to the alarmism of the Germans who claimed that Jews were going to be the ruination of the country.

  52. Who’s Richard Gere?

  53. It’s good to see that libertarians never engage in any sort of hypocrisy…for example, debating policy over the government-created internet.

    What government-created internet? You mean Arpanet is still alive?

  54. “Who’s Richard Gere?”

    How dare you diss the man I’m into!

  55. joe, what is the point everyone is trying and failing to refute? Is it this:

    “The majority of the gasses are produced through energy consumption for run-of-the-mill industrial, transportation, construction, and home-use operations. It is through changes in these areas that greenhouse emissions will be brought under control.”

    Who actually disputed this?

  56. Von Laue, all of the mean ol’ libertarians and Republicans in joe’s head, that’s who.

  57. Dude, Lemmy rules. No one else could make a hairy mole the size of a baby fist look so good.

  58. I believe in global warming, mostly so that people wouldn’t make the knee-jerk reaction of being a quack, but at the same time I try to point out to people that maybe shouldn’t be so drastic in trying to save the earth by any means neccesarry.

  59. But, I do question journalistic sources, of which Drudge is not a good one.

    Sure, Matt, whatever.

    Therefore, I question Nick’s integrity for using Drudge, a person, as a source, for anything.

    Except, Matt, he didn’t use Drudge as a source. He used a story Drudge linked to as a source. Can you comprehend the difference between a linker and a linkee?

    RC Dean, I can hardly wait for you to be completely silent when they announce they are offsetting their emission with carbon credits.

    When they can prove to me that their “carbon credits” are real and not virtual, I will be indeed be silent, joe. But if their carbon credits are like the ones for sale in the local Whole Foods, which neither sequester carbon nor prevent its emission, then I will continue to call bullshit.

    And I’ve got a pretty good idea which kind of carbon credits they will purchase. The real ones put money in the pockets of industry, and the fakes ones put money in the pockets of lefty feel-good foundations. And given a choice, there is no frickin’ way the lefty feel-gooders behind this are going to pay Exxon for real carbon credits when they can pay off their pals in some foundation instead.

    joe, if they either buy fake credits or none at all, will you admit this whole foofaraw did more harm to the planet than good?

  60. Joe “The Planner” Boyle has become more and more obnoxious of late. He used to be one of the more genteel posters – argumentative but usually polite – a sort of communitarian Thoreau. Now he often acts like a petulant teenager.

    What happened to the old, nice Joe? We want him back.

  61. I think we’re missing the real issue:

    Is the Gilmour-Waters iteration of Pink Floyd going to be performing?

    More importantly, if I watch the simulcast on MTV and VH-1 am I going to have to sit through a fucking Dave Matthews set? No cause is worth that.

    I’ve got to get back to being brainwashed by Drudge.

  62. GO RAMONES!!!

    I’ll post somr more swell Ramones vids on this thread.

    GABA GABA HEY GABA HEY GABA HAY

  63. R C Dean,

    How is he not using Drudge as a source when he goes to his site, and then starts a blog from that visit? What definition of “source” do you use?

    He should not have anything to do with Drudge in assocaition with his dealings with Reason, if he expects to be repsected by any reasonable person.

  64. I don’t understand why clicking a link at Drudge is so awful compared to clicking a link at Fark or something. The moderators at Fark have no “journalistic credibility”, but I’ll bet Anna Nicole really did die even though I found a link there. If you don’t want to believe Drudge’s exclusives, well, fine, I’m right there with you. But stop being such a prat about where someone found a link.

    By the way, it’s my understanding that in many newsrooms, there is a monitor dedicated to refreshing the Drudge Report — because he is an incredible link & news aggregator.

  65. von Laue,

    You also miss the point. I don’t think anyone that wants to spread information and enage in reasonable discourse or deabte should come anywhere near Drudge’s work. It’s trash. Of course that does not mean that all of the news he links is trash! That’s stupid! His work is trash! If you site him in anyway in your piece, that yo are giving credit to trash. If a newsroom really needs Drudge to aggregate news, that they have problems and I don’t want to have anything to do with them.

    If you don’t think Drudge lacks journalistic credability, than we should agree to disagree. But it is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest to right off Nick’s using Drudge as a source because, “all he did was note the link.” HE STILL WENT TO HIS SITE AND NAMED HIM IN THE PIECE!

  66. Your footprint, joe, it stinks!

  67. Matt is to Drudge as Dave W is to HFCS.

  68. And convince Lemmy to change Motorhead’s name to Hybridhead

    Ahem . . .

    Don’t joke about C8H18

  69. If you don’t think Drudge lacks journalistic credability, than we should agree to disagree

    reading is fundamental, matt.

    highnumber: ha!

  70. Even though rock stars and other jet-setters produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses per capita, their exploits amount to a drop in the overall bucket.

    And their drop is a hell of a lot smaller than mine, so piss off.

  71. er, bigger than mine.

    TWD error

  72. Matt:

    I do question journalistic sources, of which Drudge is not a good one. Therefore, I question Nick’s integrity for using Drudge, a person, as a source, for anything. He or anyone that writes for a magazine, SHOULD NOT use Drudge as any kind of source whatsoever.

    Ridiculous! If Nick cited just the Financial Times story rather that the Drudge link to it, would we have been spared your tantrum?

    Matt, cuz of this piece and the one you wrote at 6:57pm, I question your capacity for rational thought and your mental maturity. For Nick’s citation of Drudge to reveal a lack of integrity or any such thing, Drudge would have to have a track record of fabrication on these type of matters. Does he? I don’t think so. But come on Shocked Capitals Boy. Cite some examples to justify your hyperbole. Betya can’t.

    You’re just bloviating cuz it’s easier for you than thinking. Sounds like you’re a fine candidate for Al Gore’s Global warming disinformation campaign.

  73. Nick, tell the truth, you ARE Joey Ramone.

  74. Rick Barton,

    Examples of Drudge lying, way, way too easy.

    Just one example:

    Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

    The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER?” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

    What Drudge says:

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

    What Clinton actually signed:

    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

    That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

    The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

    Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

    What Drudge says:

    Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

    What Carter’s executive order actually says:

    1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

    What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

    Just one example of many. Drudge has zero credability amonst journalist. ZIPPO!

  75. I could post these all night long.

    So far, Drudge seems to be meeting the new special high standard of accuracy reserved for the Drudge Report. His only alleged misstatement that was ever tested in a court of law concerned a statement about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, for which Drudge was sued for libel. The case ended with Blumenthal paying Drudge money.

    REALITY: The “alleged misstatement” was a despicable libel against Blumenthal. In 1997, Drudge wrote: “‘There are court records of Blumenthal’s violence against his wife,’ one influential republican, who demanded anonymity, tells the DRUDGE REPORT.” Drudge retracted the story, but did not apologize to the Blumenthal family. Blumenthal filed suit against Drudge. While Blumenthal had to pay for attorneys out of his own pocket, Drudge relied on funding from right-wing groups (one of the main sources of funding was David Horowitz who recently libeled David Brock when he ironically accused Brock of libeling him). Blumenthal had to drop the lawsuit and pay court costs, not because of the merits of his case, but rather because of the right’s deep pockets.

    While that particular libel was an attempt to discredit the Clinton White House, a more recent Drudge smear was done in order to take the heat off the Bush White House for the Enron scandal-an odd behavior by someone who portrays himself as a muckraker. Drudge spread the falsehood that then-CEO of Enron Ken Lay had slept over at the Clinton White House (it was actually the White House of George H. W. Bush). This falsehood spread to much of the mainstream media. Gene Lyons broke the story that Drudge was full of it. Nevertheless, Drudge refused to retract the story or apologize. So I decided to call Drudge’s radio show and find out why he didn’t retract the story and apologize. Here is the transcript of our conversation:

    DRUDGE: Let’s go back to the board. Line one; you’re on the air with Drudge.

    SCOOBIE: Hey Drudge, this is Scoobie here, man. I just wanted to compliment you on your Enron
    coverage.

    DRUDGE: Oh, oh, thank you. Yes, it’s very stimulating, isn’t it?

    SCOOBIE: Yes, especially-

    DRUDGE: Why don’t you-well, you can take over the show and you can do thirty minutes of Enron
    coverage and we’ll see if you have one damn listener at the end of that thirty minutes.

    SCOOBIE: Yes, yes, it’s true-

    DRUDGE: Why don’t you try? The floor is yours.

    SCOOBIE: Well, I’ll tell you. I especially-

    DRUDGE: Go ahead. The floor is yours. You’ve now got thirteen Western states. Proceed, sir.

    SCOOBIE: Okay, I think it’s especially newsworthy-your scoop about Ken Lay staying in the
    Clinton White House, especially when you didn’t bother to retract it and you let others to think
    that also.

    [Silence]

    SCOOBIE: Hello

    [Silence]

    SCOOBIE: (Louder) Helllloooo

    [Silence]

    SCOOBIE: Where’s Drudge? Hello. [laughing] There’s no Drudge. [These last words were muted from the radio show–leading to about four seconds of dead air]

    [Drudge then disconnected Scoobie and did an incoherent rant (acting as if Scoobie were still on the line). Scoobie listens to the rant off the air while drinking a Corona]

    So much for Drudge meeting the alleged “new special high standard of accuracy reserved for the Drudge Report.”

  76. Matt,

    Thanks for those citations at 11:44. I asked for examples at on par with the type of subject that Nick cited, but your citations are interesting anyway. Neither headline contradicts the facts but if Drudge used them to claim that Bush’s dangerous excesses had precedent in Cater and Clinton, then according to the evidence that you provided, that claim is indeed false. When did these Drudge headlines appear?

    Your condemnation of Nick cuz; ” HE STILL WENT TO HIS SITE AND NAMED HIM IN THE PIECE!” is still ridiculous, but I’m sorry that I came down on you so hard about it since now you’re arguing with facts.

  77. I don’t understand this ‘Drudge is not a good journalist’ since Drudge does very little original journalism.

    After a casaul glance at his website, I would say 99% of his ‘work’ is links to articles on other websites. And yes, most of those articles support his (I am guessing here) right of center point of view.

    He very rarely writes an original story.

  78. Don’t want to neglect “Cretin Hop”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOX36vALsk

  79. I’ve clicked on Drudge’s links before and found his “headlines” to be misleading. He’s also quick to post things without fact-checking. I don’t consider him a credible journalist and I don’t know anyone who does.

    That said, Matt, your point is exceedingly silly. The fact that Drudge is a numbskull doesn’t change the fact that in this instance he is merely a referrer and not a “source”.

    It’s called a “hat tip”. Stop with the hand-wringing already.

  80. If Drudge links to an article it is automatically false?

  81. If Drudge links to an article it is automatically false?

    Guy Montag,

    Serious, really?!? I mean, are you serious!

    Oh why not.

    Here is a case in which Drudge actually changed the headline on a link to politicize it.

    Funny

    Matt Drudge wants you to know full well that this Valerie Plame stuff is all speculation. Reuters’ headline reads:

    White House Rejects Independent Counsel for Leak

    But check out Drudge’s version of the headline, which links to the same story:

    White House Rejects Independent Counsel for ‘Leak’

    Some more good Drudge headlines.

    Matt Drudge’s Efforts To Cast Doubt on Global Warming Reaches New Level of Desperation

    Global warming is real. Matt Drudge, “the Walter Cronkite of his era,” is working overtime to convince people it isn’t happening. Here’s what he put up on the Drudge Report today:

    “September 2006 U.S. temperatures 0.7 degrees BELOW 20 centuey average….”

    First, this is totally irrelevant. Global warming does not mean there is never going to be a cold day or a cold month somewhere on the globe. Globally, September 2006 was the 4th warmest on record.

    Second, Drudge leaves out this crucial fact from the NOAA report he links to:

    The January-September 2006 combined temperature is warmest on record. The previous record warm January-September happened in 2000.

    In other words, according to the NOAA report Drudge cites, there has never been a warmer year in the United States so far than 2006. Amazingly, Drudge is seizing on this report to suggest that global warming isn’t real.

    Look, you all can defend Nick, you probably should if you are a regular here. But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge, I run the other way. He is a want-a-be journalist and politcal hack for the right. He is no libertarian, and I don’t think it is reasonable for a Reason writer to associate with Drudge in anyway, unless to call him out on paper for what he is. I am so tired of the poltical hackery from the right. Please, can’t you just debate this stuff honestly.

    Lastly, there has been a lot of talk about links. Notice above, he changes the titles on the links to polticize them. Class act, don’t you think? I’m sure the writers of those stories love him for that.

    Enjoy you morning coffee.

  82. Serious, really?!? I mean, are you serious!

    Of course I am not serious. I was making fun of your silly tantrum.

  83. RC Dean,

    “joe, if they either buy fake credits or none at all, will you admit this whole foofaraw did more harm to the planet than good?”

    Whether the event does the planet good will depend on its capacity to bring about political changes. This is primarily an event intended to promote activism, not play music with a small carbon footprint.

  84. Matt:

    But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge, I run the other way.

    That kind of categorical rule is a crippling, anti-intellectual, shortcoming.

    Global warming is real.

    The more critical question, that it’s a result of human activity, is not substantiated at all. Strong evidence to the contrary includes a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters in January that found that “the rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century.” In the first half of the 20th century sea level rose by about 2 millimeters per year, while averaging about 1.5 millimeters per year in the second half”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

  85. Did anyone check out the Ramones vids that I linked to?

  86. Thanks for the Ramones, Rick! yeaaa.

    COMMANDO!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S48n3SXMzik

    and see the Ramones and add the DEAD BOYS

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0TDMq-PcA
    (Sonic Reducer).

    Long Live Stiv!

  87. Hi VM! Good to see you! I’m gonna check those vids.

  88. Oh, But THIS time they’re right.

    I want a valid explanation for how the climate experts could have been so incredibly wrong in their modeling and forecasts back in the 1970’s. I also want an apology for the use of hype and the scare tactics.

    We were threatened, no, we were promised a coming ice age that would wipe us out. We were promised, like a hail of Biblical fire and brimstone, massive starvation and famine as the population bomb exploded. None of this happened. In fact, our lives are better, there is more abundance, and the planet is cleaner than it’s been in a long, long time.

    And now, with the fervor of a Pentecostal preacher at a tent revival, we are promised climate change so dramatic that it will alter everything there is about life as we know it. Until I get some valid explanations for the gross errors in past forecasts, I can’t take seriously the idea that the pretty people in Malibu are going to have to move up into the hills.

  89. Thanks VM! I saved the Dead Boys to my faves. I hadn’t even heard of em before.

  90. Great, Rick!

    Stiv Baters (!) went on to 1) become lead singer of the Lords of the New Church and 2) got hit by a car in Paris…

    cheers!

  91. But to you all, and NIck, when I see the name Drudge, I run the other way.

    Please do! Spare us your further obsessive ramblings on Drudge.

  92. Rick,

    If you like the Dead Boys, you should check out Rocket From The Tombs. Several members were later in the Dead Boys, and they had a different, more experimental attack.

  93. Wine Commonsewer wrote:
    “I want a valid explanation for how the climate experts could have been so incredibly wrong in their modeling and forecasts back in the 1970’s.”

    Answer:
    There were only two peer reviewed papers from the seventies which, when taken out of context/misquoted, suggested anything of the nature of a coming Ice Age; which I beleive is what you are refering to. The whole Ice Age Scare was based on just those two, and then given the mega media treatment by Newsweek et al.

    Source:
    http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

  94. VM,

    Did he live or die?

    Pendulum,

    Thanks for the hint. I’ll check em out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.