It has been interesting this afternoon noticing that virtually the entire media has commented that the Live Earth series of continents are being held in seven continents concerts…but, that can’t be right…let’s list the continents.
1. Australia
2. Asia
3. Europe
4. Africa
5. North America
6. South America
7. Antarctica
And the Live Earth concerts are taking place in:
New York (North America)
London (Europe)
Sydney (Australia)
Rio de Janeiro (South America)
Tokyo (Asia)
Shanghai (Asia)
Johannesburg (Africa)
Hamburg (Europe)
Update: Mick has pointed out in the comments below that there will be a pre-recorded concert in Antartica…I stand corrected, but I still think the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time…probably great for the fans of the bands which are playing at the concerts though. End Update
All the continents except for Antarctica…so it’s only happening in six continents. That then brings me to the question of who is the source of this erroneous seven continents figure…with this many media outlets using the line, it almost has to be the publicist, and the Live Earth website confirms it [1]:
Live Earth is a 24-hour, 7-continent concert series taking place on 7/7/07 that will bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.
I can’t say that I’m entirely surprised that Al Gore is using inflated figures to promote this series of concerts to promote a questionable cause (and if carbon emissions really are to blame for climate change…how much more than usual is this concert series producing?).
Further Update: Mick also points out that the concerts are apparently carbon neutral. Someone must be making an awful lot of money selling those carbon credits! End Update
I, for one, am enjoying the cold and the rain!
Samuel
Comments Disabled To "Live Earth in Seven Continents?"
#1 Comment By mick On July 7, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
All 7 continents are having concerts Samuel.
Read this -> [2]
Also, every concert will be carbon neutral, and the point Al Gore makes is what would people be doing other than attending a carbon neutral concert?
It’s a huge event and I think it’s fantastic. Just wish I was there.
#2 Comment By Samuel On July 7, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Thanks Mick, I’ve posted a couple corrections.
I still think it’s a giant waste of time, but I suppose you wouldn’t have expected anything less from me, after all I don’t believe humans are the main, or even much of a, contributing factor to the change in climate.
“The Earth’s climate is always changing”.
#3 Comment By donescobar On July 7, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Typo in the first paragraph Sam.
It should read “the live earth series of concerts”, not “series of continents”.
#4 Comment By John999555 On July 7, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
I shan’t be watching it.
#5 Comment By Samuel On July 7, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Thanks donescobar.
Neither will I John.
#6 Comment By Frankster On July 7, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
For anyone who’s getting it down on their Foxtel IQ, it’s gonna take 40% of your disk space. Fact! đ
#7 Comment By John999555 On July 7, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
And let’s keep in mind that it’s carbon DIOXIDE that needs to be reduced …… not carbon per se.
If the aim is “zero carbon”, then we would need to remove ourselves from the scene, as all life on earth is carbon based.
#8 Comment By Samuel On July 7, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
On the subject of Carbon verse Carbon Dioxide, I can honestly plead guilty to the rather silly act of deliberately abbreviating Carbon Dioxide to “Carbon” when writing about it.
It doesn’t change my opinion on the reasons behind the changing climate though.
#9 Comment By Samuel On July 7, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Incidentally, welcome back John.
#10 Comment By donescobar On July 8, 2007 @ 12:45 am
No boys, its not just carbon dioxide.
Its carbon monoxide and clorofluorocarbons as well.
This is why the term “carbon neutral” is used.
#11 Comment By John_Barnes On July 8, 2007 @ 8:55 am
It’s interesting to note that the biggest offender of the so-called “Greenhouse Gases” is Methane, a ‘non carbon’ emission.
Methane stands accused of causing more “global warming” than carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions.
#12 Comment By albona On July 8, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Here’s a few interesting stories… [3]
[4]
[5]
#13 Comment By Clayton Northcutt On July 8, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
If the climate is always changing Samuel, you’re saying we should do nothing, even if we have the power to change where it is going to a more suitable and livable state?
#14 Comment By Pen 15 On July 8, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
I’m guilty of abbreviating “Carbon Dioxide” too. I shorten it to “crbn”
#15 Comment By Samuel On July 8, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Clayton, we don’t have the power to change the climate, and if we did, wouldn’t exercising that power be exactly what you are trying to stop? Human interference with Earth’s climate.
I’m not against cutting down on pollution, because I agree that the world would be better with less pollution, but forcing draconian and economically irresponsible cuts to pollution under the false pretence of preventing the planet from getting warmer, is downright ludicrous.
#16 Comment By Samuel On July 8, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Clearly it is easier for the alarmists like Al Gore to blame modern industry than to accept that all of the wildlife should take the majority of the blame for emitting all of that methane.
Accepting that, would mean accepting that global warming is a natural phenomena.
#17 Comment By John_Barnes On July 8, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
From Wikipedia –
“Significant quantities of methane are also produced
by cattle â not by flatulence, as is commonly
believed, but 95% through belching. The livestock
sector in general (primarily cattle, chickens, and
pigs) produces 37% of all human-induced methane”.
Something needs to be done about belching animals !
#18 Comment By Pen 15 On July 8, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
I say we eat them all!
#19 Comment By donescobar On July 9, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Itâs interesting to note that the biggest offender of the so-called âGreenhouse Gasesâ is Methane, a ânon carbonâ emission.
Methane stands accused of causing more âglobal warmingâ than carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions.
Er, John. Methane IS a carbon emission, and it IS a hydrocarbon. In fact its two constituent elements are hydrogen and carbon.
In fact, methane, at 75% carbon by mass, has almost three times more carbon than carbon dioxide which has just 27% carbon by mass.
Comments like John’s exemplify why its so important to educate ignorant people about climate change.
#20 Comment By John_Barnes On July 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Non-carbon emission means non-carbon dioxide emission.