The proposed "Live Earth" concert for DC is on the ropes. And it's a good thing, too. We don't have to lend our public resources to one sided political events like Gore's glorious traveling global warming salvation show.
WASHINGTON — When former Vice President Al Gore testified before Congress last week, his appearance was viewed as the triumph of environmentalists over doubters in the debate over global warming.
Fresh from Hollywood, where his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar, Gore imbued Democrats now in power on Capitol Hill with a sense of mission, urging them to "rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis."
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, seemed a lonely dissenter. Forced by November's election results to surrender the gavel to enviro-friendly Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Inhofe — who has called the alarms about man-made global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" — challenged what he called the inaccuracies in Gore's assertions and spent most of his time making speeches to the former vice president.
Saying Olympia Snowe's support makes something bi-partisan is like saying Elizabeth II of England is teh gay because she's called the queen.
They lined up bipartisan support: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) cosponsored the resolution. After Republicans raised concerns about security costs, the promoters offered to reimburse the government for the estimated $1.5 million in police expenses. They started making plans.
But Inhofe objected "to having any events on the Capitol grounds that are either highly partisan or politically controversial — and the proposed Gore concert is both," said Marc Morano, the GOP communications director for the Environment and Public Works Committee. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) questioned the issue on the Senate floor last Friday, holding up its passage.


Uh, okay, so two Republicans have said that they don't like it. Wow. The tides, they are a-turning.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Glad it got shut down.
Posted by: Hard Right | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 01:02 PM
This proves that global warming is a hoax.
Posted by: Legalize | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 01:34 PM
I'm no climatologist, but I note a few things:
1. I have read reports from those whose opinion I respect on other issues that lead me to think that to do many of the things that Gore et al recommend would seriously affect me and my family's economic health.
2. Such reports also lead me to seriously question the possible value in any way of taking any such actions.
3. I doubt if 5 % of those who support such actions could ground their recommendations in anything more than personal preference, since most of them would deny the actual existence of moral absolutes; therefore I reject their attempts to foist their personal preferences off as a matter of morality.
4. If and when a group of scientists with the appropriate credentials are assembled and strongly recommend serious action about global warming, I'll take notice. Such credentials would have to include:
a. a consistent Biblical worldview including a sound view of creation and soteriology
b. PhD's in the relevant fields
Until then I'll believe Gore et al about as much as I believe the medical 'ethicists' who tell me that 'of course, it's OK if' I 'don't want to do an abortion, but' I 'HAVE to be willing to refer a woman to someone who will do one.' In fact I don't have to, either legally or morally. The fact that such fools are considered experts in the field of medical ethics, about which I know much, makes me question the wisdom of following the 'experts' in other fields when they recommend actions that could cause serious harm.
Posted by: Doc | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Not that I'd bother to watch, but the though of a horde of moonbats passing out from the DC heat in July sort of amuses me.
Posted by: JammieWearingFool | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 02:09 PM
One thing that gets me is that global warming supporters always say things like highest temps in recorded history. Now that sounds pretty bad, but what does it mean. People didn't start a systematic recording of temps all that long ago. I mean sailors and navy people in the various European empires were starting to but they weren't using very accurate equipment. It also completely leaves out the whole warming trend that hit the earth in the late 800's AD all the way up to the start of the 1400's.
To realize how warm it was at that time picture Greenland as it is today, now imagine being able to grow wheat there like the Vikings were able to. The French were also very angry with the English because they were growing grapes and producing wine in vineyards to the north of London and in central England. Does the average person even realize how much warmer it had to of been to do that. We are talking at least several degrees if not more. This is not a small matter, humans were not producing huge amounts of industrial polution at that time and yet we had a large sustained warming trend. This is not being addressed by the global warming crowd other than to lable people who bring it up as "climate deniers" kind of like holocaust deniers. It makes you wonder why the absolute rejection of any disent by these guys.
Posted by: southdakotaboy | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Such a pity. Another victim of the rethugs I guess.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Thank goodness they stopped that concert from happening. Maybe Inhofe and McConnell can go after DC rainforest benefits and cancer awareness conventions next.
But before Dan gets all holier-than-thou about using public property for some sinister left-wing agenda, it might be worth noting the quaint little underreported story on the GSA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801808.html
"Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the committee was focusing on the videoconference at GSA facilities because it might have violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts government agencies and employees from engaging in political activity on the job.
...
In a slide called "2008 House Targets: Top 20," the presentation named 20 Democrats the GOP will key on in 2008. Another slide, called "2008 House GOP Defense," had a list of Republicans the party wants to protect."
So Republicans can stage political campaigns on taxpayer dollars in taxpayer buildings during working hours, but McConnell can't stand seeing a global warming concert on DC ground because... why?
Oh, that's right. IOKIARDI!
Posted by: Zifnab | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 03:01 PM
S. Con. Res. 17 , authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for a Live Earth Concert on July 17, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.
I was very involved with similar resolutions in the past, and know that the precedent of the Architect of the Capitol for carrying out its responsibilities under such Resolutions is to issue a permit or license to the party that is authorized to use the Capitol Grounds.
Such permits were tailored to the particular activity in question. In view of the focus of this particular event, and the likelihood that it will attract significant media attention, both nationally and globally, I respectfully suggest that the license should provide for the following:
"In carrying out the provisions of this permit, the Licensee shall ensure that:
(1) all stage, seating, booths, sound amplification and video devices, and other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event, including equipment for the broadcast of the event over radio, television, and other media outlets, be constructed of environmentally favorable materials, meeting applicable requirements of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating System of the U.S. Green Building Council."
(2) complete work on the U.S. Capitol Grounds, including but not limited to labor, equipment, materials, trucking and transportation, and sanitary facilities shall result in a neutral or negative carbon footprint as calculated by a nationally recognized, independent testing method acceptable to the Architect of the Capitol."
Posted by: Chuck Tyler | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 04:16 PM
"4. If and when a group of scientists with the appropriate credentials are assembled and strongly recommend serious action about global warming, I'll take notice. Such credentials would have to include:
a. a consistent Biblical worldview including a sound view of creation and soteriology
b. PhD's in the relevant fields"
Creationists with Ph.D's in earth and atmospheric science? Why don't you just come out and say "Liberty University Grads"? I can't imagine you'd find too many people like that elsewhere. Might as well ask for blue-haired scientists with wings.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Rather a LU grad than a doctrinaire philosophical naturalist. Altho', personally, I'd prefer a Biola, Patrick Henry, John Brown U, or Trinity grad. Since philosophical naturalists tend to discriminate against those who acknowledge Special Creation, it doesn't surprise me that one rarely finds a creationist in a prominent position in the sciences elsewhere.
Posted by: Doc | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 05:30 PM
the skiing was great in colorado this season, fantastic snow.
Posted by: tally | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 07:37 PM
Bravo, Chuck. :) Perfect.
Posted by: Phoenix | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 10:30 PM
SILENCE you Rethuglican bastards! The Goracle has spoken and all the Dan-stalking Phds here-- Leg, zippy, et alia-- totally agree and you are all RACISTS and HOMOPHOBES and CHRISTIANISTS if you disagree, because there is "consensus" amongst ALL the scientists, dontcha know.
But really, why even bother debating these rejects? Circa 1970 they were all about the "global cooling." Now it's the "global warming," which is morphing into the even more meaningless "climate change." They know nothing and their words MEAN nothing because they will change 180 degrees in a second and them condemn YOU for being too slow to see the brilliance of their ever-changing modalities. Please, not one of the serial lib commentors here can or should be taken the slightest bit seriously.
Posted by: vetter | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Here's the thing- you aren't supposed to have partisan events on Capital grounds. Everyone has respected that for 2 centuries and more. Now Gore wants to break that comity by staging a VERY partisan event there. Is he trying to claim the bands that play WONT bash Bush and the Republicans, and WONT make it an anti-war event as well as a anti-capitalism, anti-business, anti-American event? Yeah right. And monkeys might fly out my butt too.
Posted by: darcy_lane | Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Jesse Jackson has announced that he intends to support B. Obama in his run for Prez. Two things come to mind here: (1) Jackson must smell some loose change somewhere and (2) if Jesse decided to throw a party on the grounds for whatever reason, you can bet nobody would dissent. The 'race card' would come out so quick it would create a tornado.
My best to Obama, though. I just wish he had a little more seasoning and if he doesn't make it this time around, does not become disheartened about the sludge and slime so typically associated with politics. Maybe down the road a bit;I really believe he would make a good Prez.
Posted by: hobo | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 01:41 AM
Hobo,
I'm thinking lining up with the Supreme Succor of Sludge and Slime will do him in this time. Obama is sure learning things the hard way about politics. I don't agree with his politics, but I feel for the man.
(I wonder how much choice he had with Jesse's 'invitation' to support him?)
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 02:02 AM
How many people would be coming to this Global Whining party? How far, in average, would they travel? How much CO2 would this travel generate? How much money would AlGore make off of selling offsets for this concert?
If AlGore cared about the Earth a tenth as much as he cares about making money from this scam he wouldn't have suggested this.
Posted by: Buzzy | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 07:26 AM
Thank you for your concern, Buzzy. Now back under your bridge.
Posted by: Zifnab | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 11:03 AM
All hail!, Ziffygoat Gruff.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Ha, the troll called me a troll. Address the issue nutroot, just how much CO2 would AlGore's concert pour into the atmosphere. How many polar bears must die before AlGore is declared the an arch menace to Earth. Oh yeah, he could televise the concert but then he'd miss out on the Tshirt sale profits.
Posted by: Buzzy | Friday, March 30, 2007 at 09:28 PM
OMG, here's one of AlGore's fellow brainiacs with a Ziffygoat solution to Global Warming.
"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%27+for+the+environment/article.do
Posted by: Buzzy | Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 12:11 AM