More hypocracy at Gore's Live Earth

[Stinger]

Climate change concert star Madonna accused of hypocrisy



But green campaigners called the stars' involvement hypocritical last night saying their lifestyles which demand they jet themselves and their huge entourages on world tours give them enormously large carbon footprints.
Last year, for example, they report how Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners.
Madonna herself also has a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. Yet she will headline the London concert to "combat the climate crisis".
"Madonna's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year. And that was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs.
"The Red Hot Chili Peppers produced 220 tonnes of CO2 with their private jet alone over six months on their last world tour which was 42 dates.
"The average a British person produces is 10 tonnes a year," said John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com.
He added: "It's great for the celebrities to come out and support the cause, but they then have to follow it up in their own lifestyles.
"We should now keep a close eye on whether Madonna and the others makes any changes to their own lifestyle.....................

The concerts are forming part of a global publicity drive on climate change, tagged SOS (Save Our Selves), headed by former US vice president Al Gore.

Climate change concert star Madonna accused of hypocrisy | the Daily Mail



Just amazing.

 

[Lightdemon]

Sigh, the ad hominem attacks never stop coming from you do they? There are many other similar threads you already posted, but they are merely ad hominem attacks, nothing more.

Attack the person all you want, the issue of Global Warming is still there.

Hitler isn't wrong when he says 2+2=4 because he was a immoral person.
Michael Jackson isn't wrong if he says the Earth revovles around the sun, despite his obsessions with young boys.
George Bush isn't wrong if he says Jessica Alba is hawt, even if he was the devil himself.

Just because you can attack thier person, doesn't make thier arguments any less valid.

Stop with the ad hominems, and address real issues.

 

[Heretic]

There have been indigenous cultures warning us of our excess for several hundred years now. Funny that in your critique of Al Gore and Madonna, you fail to mention any of them.

 

[Stinger]

Sigh, the ad hominem attacks never stop coming from you do they? There are many other similar threads you already posted, but they are merely ad hominem attacks, nothing more.

These are not ad hominem's, at least get that correct. They are pointing out the utter hypocrisies of these people. They are the ones asking of others to do what they will not. If they believe so strongly that global warming is here and is caused by the things THEY are doing then why don't THEY stop?

 

[Lightdemon]

These are not ad hominem's, at least get that correct.

LOL. ad hominem - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Look at definition #2.
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "

They are pointing out the utter hypocrisies of these people. They are the ones asking of others to do what they will not. If they believe so strongly that global warming is here and is caused by the things THEY are doing then why don't THEY stop?

Note how you capitalized the word "THEY" twice? You're simply attacking the person behind the argument, and not the argument itself.

Global Warming is a fact no matter how many times you attack the messenger. Again, attack the issue, not the person. Try again.

 

[Stinger]

LOL. ad hominem - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Look at definition #2.
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "

"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

Not attacking their character, it's their actions that are hypocritical and their actions are not irrelevant to the subject.

Note how you capitalized the word "THEY" twice? You're simply attacking the person behind the argument, and not the argument itself.

No I'm attacking THEIR argument since they don't even adhere to it.

Global Warming is a fact no matter how many times you attack the messenger.

Climate change is a fact, that it will be warmer 100 years from now unless we do something drastic is not.

Again, attack the issue, not the person. Try again.

Again, it's THEIR issue I am arguing, if they are going to urge us to do certain things then THEY should lead the way.

 

[ARealConservative]

Hitler isn't wrong when he says 2+2=4 because he was a immoral person.

A better analogy would be Hitler accusing you of being a bad person.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Sigh, the ad hominem attacks never stop coming from you do they? There are many other similar threads you already posted, but they are merely ad hominem attacks, nothing more.

Attack the person all you want, the issue of Global Warming is still there.

Hitler isn't wrong when he says 2+2=4 because he was a immoral person.
Michael Jackson isn't wrong if he says the Earth revovles around the sun, despite his obsessions with young boys.
George Bush isn't wrong if he says Jessica Alba is hawt, even if he was the devil himself.

Just because you can attack thier person, doesn't make thier arguments any less valid.

Stop with the ad hominems, and address real issues.

Er no. It just shows you how much crap these people talk. If you really believe that global warming is a seroius threat to mankind, you would not have large petrol consuming cars, energy sucking mansions, or private jets. It just shows you that these people obviously believe that since they are so important they have the right to be self-rightjous and massive consumers. People that show genuine concern and understanding would make efforts to reduce their carbon print if they believed that global warming is such a threat.

 

[Mr Smith]

It's easy to see who the liars and hypocrites are in the global warming argument. Just follow the money. Who has the most to loose? Is it academics and scientists competing for research grants? Or oil companies who make hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Gee, I wonder? Should we believe the overwhelming majority of respectable, accomplished scholars? Or right wing oil company shills like Michael Crichton?

 

[Lightdemon]

"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

Not attacking their character, it's their actions that are hypocritical and their actions are not irrelevant to the subject.

Ok, fair point. But which part of the argument are you arguing against?

No I'm attacking THEIR argument since they don't even adhere to it.

You didn't even specify what you are arguing against. Are you saying that you don't support the movement to slow down global warming? Or simply that you do not support Gore? Please clarify.

Climate change is a fact, that it will be warmer 100 years from now unless we do something drastic is not.

And I agree.

Again, it's THEIR issue I am arguing, if they are going to urge us to do certain things then THEY should lead the way.

Again tell me which part of the argument you don't agree with because I still do not see which part that is, you haven't specified it.

The only thing that you said that was related to global warming is that Gore is a hypocrit. And so what? Global warming is still an issue, no matter who the hypocrit is. The fact that they are doing something about it is what matters. Better than someone who denies green house gases are a major contributor to global warming. *cough* BUSH *cough*.

How does the use of a private jet, make any less valid that global warming is a problem?

The number of private jets, doesn't really matter so much, only a few select people have them. The larger contributors to green house gases are from the average joe riding in thier gas guzzling, non-efficient, bulky SUVs and trucks.

 

[Stinger]

It's easy to see who the liars and hypocrites are in the global warming argument. Just follow the money. Who has the most to loose? Is it academics and scientists competing for research grants? Or oil companies who make hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

Wrong question. Who has the most to gain by hyping up catastrophic GW? How about scientist trying to get government grants and university money and write books and make movies?

Gee, I wonder? Should we believe the overwhelming majority of respectable, accomplished scholars?

That do not support the idea..............yeah until someone produces so hard core evidence.

Or right wing oil company shills like Michael Crichton?

Calling them names doesn't prove the science.

 

[Mr Smith]

Wrong question. Who has the most to gain by hyping up catastrophic GW? How about scientist trying to get government grants and university money and write books and make movies?



That do not support the idea..............yeah until someone produces so hard core evidence.



Calling them names doesn't prove the science.

Another typical example of neo-con debate(or at least what passes for such). Simply ignore and deny facts. Distort the truth. Resort to unrelated canards as a distraction. Vilify the messenger. Oh, and don't forget to define the agenda and all questions for everyone so neo-cons can constantly move the debate to the right. That way people can't even find the middle ground anymore. A crude Goebbles like tactic that has worked quite well for the right wing.

 

[Lightdemon]

Wrong question. Who has the most to gain by hyping up catastrophic GW? How about scientist trying to get government grants and university money and write books and make movies?

What's wrong with this? GW is a problem, it should be good that there are movies that get the message across. Be it exaggerated or not, the message is still going out there. Same thing with writing books, although I'm sure the audience is more sophisticated than the movie-goers. That means at least the book doesn't exaggerate so much as in movies. But the message is getting accross. It surprises me that there are even still people who say that GW is not a fact and not a problem. This only shows that there needs to be more education done on this topic.

Scientists who gets grants so that they can further study GW is not a bad thing either! It only helps in our fight against GW. How else are you going to battle this? Research is one of the main things we need in order to slow down GW. You are not able to fight something you do not understand.

I don't understand your question. Why attack the scientists?

A better question is to ask, who has the most to gain by refuting evidence for GW and attacking the scientist.

And guess what? Grant money pales in comparison to the profits of oil companies. Get real.

 

[Stinger]

Another typical example of neo-con debate(or at least what passes for such). Simply ignore and deny facts. Distort the truth. Resort to unrelated canards as a distraction. Vilify the messenger. Oh, and don't forget to define the agenda and all questions for everyone so neo-cons can constantly move the debate to the right. That way people can't even find the middle ground anymore. A crude Goebbles like tactic that has worked quite well for the right wing.

Another typical example of you dodging the issue and engaging in ad hominems. You'll find yourself on lots of ignore list around here if this is you only style of debating.

So go back and refute my post instead of attacking me with invectives.

 

[Stinger]

What's wrong with this? GW is a problem,

A claim without evidence only assertions.

it should be good that there are movies that get the message across.

Not if the message is based on bad science.

Be it exaggerated or not, the message is still going out there.

Yep and lots of people are making money off of it.

Same thing with writing books, although I'm sure the audience is more sophisticated than the movie-goers.

Yep, lots of people making money.

That means at least the book doesn't exaggerate so much as in movies.

A conclusion without premise.

But the message is getting accross. It surprises me that there are even still people who say that GW is not a fact and not a problem.

Climate change is a fact, what is currently called GW is not.

This only shows that there needs to be more education done on this topic.

For those who adhere the the GW faith I agree, they need to educate themselves that the evidence is not so telling and there is much disinformation out there.

Scientists who gets grants so that they can further study GW is not a bad thing either!

No worse that one who is just studying climate in general and does not agree with the GW faithful.

It only helps in our fight against GW. How else are you going to battle this?

You first have to establish we need to and then that we can.

I don't understand your question. Why attack the scientists?

I ask you the same.

A better question is to ask, who has the most to gain by refuting evidence for GW and attacking the scientist.

Nope the better question is who stands to gain more, the scientist with the wild predictions of doom and gloom that sell books, gets government grants, gets him on the Today Show, or the scientist who just does his job and follows the evidence?

And guess what? Grant money pales in comparison to the profits of oil companies. Get real.

False comparison.

 

[Lightdemon]

Nope the better question is who stands to gain more, the scientist with the wild predictions of doom and gloom that sell books, gets government grants, gets him on the Today Show, or the scientist who just does his job and follows the evidence?

You have got to be kidding yourself. Grant money and book sales are nothing to the profits of Exxon-Mobile's been getting. Even small oil companies that we've never heard of, like Valero, has made more profits than professors and scientists.

And guess what? Grant money pales in comparison to the profits of oil companies. Get real.

False comparison.

Please, if grant money was all that great, why would our teachers be complaining about low wages? Why would our teachers and professors be protesting? Why would the teachers repeatedly show that baby-sitters who work at a minimum wage can earn more money than themselves?

Wake up.