The Enviromental Messiah Al Gore Gets Crucified: Live Earth Dies!
Al “The Goracle” Gore, failed 2000 Presidential candidate and former co-conspirator to Bill “BJ” Clinton threw a huge party for all of his Chicken Little the Sky is Falling crowd to raise awareness for Climate Change, formerly known as WEATHER. Well, as it would turn out, Katie Couric gets better ratings then Al Gore and his traveling Cathedral of Global Warming:
NEW YORK — NBC’s three-hour primetime “Live Earth” special, which included highlights from Saturday’s global concerts, failed to generate much enthusiasm in the ratings.
The estimated 2.7 million viewers was slightly under the 3 million viewers NBC has averaged on Saturday nights in the summer with repeats and the Stanley Cup hockey playoffs on what is already the least-popular night of television.
It also performed below the Live 8 concert two years ago, according to preliminary estimates released Monday by Nielsen Media Research.
The three-hour concert special from Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., drew a 0.9 rating/3 share in adults 18-49 — the same as a typical summer Saturday after Memorial Day.
The special was also just under ABC’s primetime coverage of the Live 8 concert, which occurred Independence Day weekend on July 2, 2005. Live 8 averaged 2.9 million viewers and a 1.0 rating/5 share in adults 18-49.Ratings for the all-day, all-night telecasts on NBC Universal’s cable platforms, including 18 hours on Bravo and even more than that on Sundance Channel, won’t be in until Tuesday.
Meanwhile, CBS and Fox split Sunday night in primetime, with CBS winning viewership while Fox won in adults 18-49 thanks to repeats of “Family Guy” and “The Simpsons.”
At least Fox had Homer Simpson to come to the rescue and pull them out of the environmental porta potty of television ratings! Can you tell? I’m laughing my ass off as I write this little ditty.
Even the EuroGreenWeineis were’nt buying into the bullsh*t that Gore and his Hollyweird friends were shoveling.
From the Daily Mall in the UK:
Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouthed flop.
Organisers of the global music concert – punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers – had predicted massive viewing figures.
But BBC’s live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.
In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7 million.
And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5 million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.
The BBC blamed the poor figures on Saturday’s good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers.
Good weather and Foul Mouths seemed to be the main reasons the Brits didn’t warm up to Live Earth causing to seemingly die a cold lonely death!
It seems that the hip celebrity crowd was quite loose with their Botoxed lips and were letting the four letter words fly as much as their gas hogging private jets globe-trotting between concert venues.
The BBC’s coverage, which ran for 15 hours from 12.30pm on Saturday to 4am yesterday, also sparked dozens of complaints about bad language.
The swearing started at 1.30pm when Phil Collins, the first act on in London, used the f-word while singing with his band Genesis.
Razorlight singer Johnny Borrell used the same expletive a few minutes later in one of his songs. And Chris Rock swore while introducing fellow comic Ricky Gervais, who soon followed suit.
The bad language prompted a number of angry postings on BBC messageboards.
One viewer wrote: “Why did the BBC transmit this during daytime TV when many children will be watching? Why hasn’t an apology been immediately forthcoming?” Another said: “It was disgusting behaviour.” Other comments included: “It was pretty bad at that time of day” and “There is a line to be drawn”.
And the Pièce de résistancewas the huge amount of garbage the “environmentalists” left behind in their wake of idiocy:
The mounds of rubbish left by the 65,000 concert-goers at Wembley further tarnished the event’s green credentials.
Organisers claimed most of the waste would be sorted and recycled but the Daily Mail saw little evidence of that taking place. The Alliance for Climate Protection event was organised by Al Gore, the former U.S. vice-president and environmental campaigner.
As usual, this crowd is all show and no go! They expect us to change OUR lifestyle and want to bankrupt the world into a 6th century economy, and for what? Something the earth has been doing naturally for millions of freaking years? It’s called weather you schmucks! It’s warm today, and guess what????? It’s going to be cool tomorrow! Junk science is all they are trying to force feed us and coerce us to believe that they are right and that their is absofreakinglutely no way they are wrong! Guess What? I’m not buy now, nor will I buy into this later!
Well, I’m off to do my own little part in saving the planet. Cows cause the most greenhouse gasses by farting….I’m off to throw some burgers on the grill. We’re going to eat the real source of the gas, the cows!
Once again, Al Gore can kiss my carbon laden a$$ while I dream of placing my own carbon footprint on his backside!
| More from The Rogue Jew
Stumble It!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Not many watched because most people realize the Goracle’s pseudo-science is crap. Even the Hollywood crowd only praise him because it’s the “in” thing to do.
It’s so much fun watching turds crash and burn.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Ths Shadow Minister (lefty Opposition) in Oz is a former head-banging lead singer from the band ‘Midnight Oil’, Peter Garrett. What company to keep Al Gore warm. At least you guys have real actors getting to high office. All we can do is a loud mouthed shouter-to-noise and a prospective PM who looks and sounds like the cartoon character Tintin.
The environmental footprint of these around-the-world ‘concerts’ of crassness are horrendous. Thank goodness more didn’t bother to watch the Tv transmissions. Just think of the amount of fuel that needs to be burned to generate electricity for several billion TV sets.
I saw this analysis on the net a while back. It could be useful to help the great unwashed understand that they are being led astry by the charlatans.
2400 Bottles of water
Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water — 2,400 litres in all.
According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun’s reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.
But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases.
Only one case — just 24 bottles out of 2,400 — would contain greenhouse gases.
Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don’t know.)
The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.
Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that — at least 95% — is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).
At most, 5% of the 0.04%carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.
So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide.
Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Australia’s contribution is just 1.1% — about 0.5 ml.
If, as Mr. Rudd and Old Oily Head-Banger demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third — which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Australia (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or some combination of all these — we would be saving one-quarter of 1 ml — the tip of an eyedropper.
And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.
That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.
It’s hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Rudd and Old Oily Head-Banger could explain that in his next press release.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Interesting example with numbers, amfortas.
But please allow me to entertain you with some real numbers, not an analogy.
440 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide flush in and out of the biomass each year. It is created by metabolism, decay, and fire. It is then put back into the biomass by the magic of plant photosynthesis.
And what magic that is. All the fruits, vegetables, and grains you eat are directly created by plant photosynthesis. What plants we don’t eat are fed to horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, geese, etc., even the deer and the antelope eat plants we oculd not digest. Not only do we eat the meat, dairy and eggs, we sleep on the feathers and wear the leather. Not to mention the wood, rubber and fiber we use from the trees, flax, hemp and sisal.
About half of that 440 trillion pounds of carbon is turned by phytoplankton into fish food, providing us with salmon, halibut, and cod, along with lobsters and crabs and clams, oh my!
The fossil fuel contribution? A mere 14.3 trillion pounds is added each year to the 440 trillion pound natural flux described herein above. Most of which is photosynthesized into the biomass. Which includes the food we eat, the animals, the plants, us, and all that is living or dead and decaying.
Is it really a bad thing that we are taking carbon that has been buried in the ground for millions of years and releasing it to the atmosphere where it is available for plant photosynthesis? Is a larger biomass a bad thing?
And we are donig it the best way to do it, a moderate amount when compared to the vast natural flux we have long called the carbon cycle.
The Earth warms up, it cools down, and sometimes it even stays the same for a little while. But like the price of a share of stock, past performance is no guarantee of future results! Reducing our use of fossil fuels will have as much effect on what the climate does as sacrificing a virgin has on whether a volcano erupts!
July 10th, 2007 at 2:36 am
A most complementary addition, Roger.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Al Gore is indeed to climate science something like what Glenn Sacks is to family law reform and criticism: he’s an entertainer and a show-businessman.
But, Knight, ask what happens when those 7 G-tons accumulate year after year: it’s already about 1/3 of the net, _resident_ carbon (not the “flux”).
And Horrible Heeb, note that cows don’t flatuate CH_4: they burp it out through their mouths; appreciate the difference between the opposing ends of the alimentary tract, and visit a pasture sometime.
You can refer to the ex-president simply as `BJ Clinton’: Bill Jefferson is literally his name.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:21 am
WLS; No, Bill cliton’s real name is, “Sell out my own gender for a piece of ass, a BJ, and a legacy in history.” Men may die, but Willie won’t cry. Don’t forget, he and the Gore-bore sold America’s tech secrets to the Chinese in return for illegal campaign contributions.
Reagan may have been teflon, but Slick Willie is just slimey.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:24 am
I observe some complain about leaders in our little men’s group. I feel disappointed. The consequence may be putting out the spark of hope that may ignite a major national movement, and I do not want that. Though it’s not a perfect world, I want each person building into each other.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:32 am
RJ: BRAVO; thanks for bringing what I consider top news of the day. This might muffle Gore’s global whining.
Also, WLS; re-read the article. RJ didn’t say anything about cows farting CD. Cows fart methane which is a greenhouse gas.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:30 am
mruffolo,,,
I’m not sure I understand your point???
Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize Gore and Willy because they are men..??
July 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
bigpapa, read it again. Gore and Willy are not leaders of our men’s groups. They are hysterics.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
AND That amfortas was why I was having a bit of a question…
July 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
CH_4 _is_ methane, and some of you don’t seem to know the difference between the two ends of a cow.
There’s also some evident confusion between substance, and what play actors or entertainers put out.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Some one said: “Al Gore is indeed to climate science something like what Glenn Sacks is to family law reform and criticism: he’s an entertainer and a show-businessman.”
Then mruffolo said: “I observe some complain about leaders in our little men’s group. … Though it’s not a perfect world, I want each person building into each other.”
bigpapa: “Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize Gore and Willy because they are men..??”
He was saying don’t cut up Glenn Sacks. He wasn’t saying don’t cut up Gore or Clinton.
Bigpapa’s point seems to be that we should be able to cut up leaders in the men’s movement just like we cut up other men, like Gore and Clinton.
But the difference is that Gore and Clinton are forces for evil and Glenn is a force for good. So we should be more restrained in our criticism of Glenn. Glenn is doing a lot of good stuff and we need guys like him so let’s support him. Any criticism should be more constructive and supportive. Comparing Glenn to Al Gore (as someone did above) is an insult, and I don’t think Glenn deserves that.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:21 am
ok,,, I’m NOT critcizing Glenn…
I just despise Gore and Clinton,,
and yes no one should be above question,,, or correction..
July 11th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Although the issues addressed are different, Gore, the Clintons, and Sacks all use the same methods or manipulative techniques. Sacks isn’t your friend: you are his market.