SpecialEd said:

And history is littered with examples of Europeans accepting human impacts of other sorts and adjusting their habits (I would imagine ignoring the existence of concentration camps then and radical imams now would take a huge adjustment).

Prince seems to be doing things for the environment, if not 100% consciously:

• Doesn't eat meat (or eats the minimum amount for health reasons)
• He attempted pure digital distribution of music (doing away with production, packaging, and shipping entirely). I see him returning to this: I see him living more off touring in the future, and selling each show online like Pearl Jam.
• Digipak/paper cases for most of his recent output: Rave Un2, TRC, ONA, News, Musicology, 3121.
• He also won an award for his Rave liner notes about sheep - that wool, while humanely harvested, results in sheep dying of cold exposure.

Se7en said:

Exactly. This Live Earth thing doesn't seem bad at all. Actually, it sounds very Prince-ish. Y'all need to just chill... either you want a new performance or you don't.

Jakeasaurus said:

Agreed. I just remember a few other things:

• During Emancipation, his Love4OneAnother charity donated proceeds from each concert to different causes
• He had clothing drives at each concert that accepted coats/jackets
• SST/Brand New Orleans - 100% of the proceeds went to benefit New Orleans
• Happy Feet - 100% of the proceeds went to charity

Jakeasaurus said:

now you know that's impossible. Folks are gonna rip this apart and go into over-analyzing overdrive. That's okay, it adds some spice.

Jakeasaurus said:

People should listen to the intro and lyrics to the "One Song" download and then say it doesn't sound like something he'd do . . .

Se7en said:

Agreed.

The sun shines the planet heats up thats global warming.

mankind destroying the planet is another thing all together... well we're not helping matters are we.
[Edited 3/24/07 6:24am]

Riverpoet31 said:

He was never crossracial, Americans just didn't get it.

oldpurple said:

Wow - you really are ignorant of the whole Global Warming epidemic.

Our industrial emissions are what's causing Global Warming - the "bad" rays are being trapped inside the part of the atmosphere that WE created!

The same Sun has been shining on the same Earth for millions of years . . . but only in the past few hundred years have humans done the most damage.

We've had the hottest summers in human history - all in the past decade!

JonnyApplesauce said:

In America, he was promoted as being half Italian/half Black. Whether or not that came directly from Prince's people, or if it was rumor, it caught on and nobody from either side corrected it.

I think a lot of it (even though it existed before) came from the movie Purple Rain - where his mother was an Italian woman.

Genesia said:

Thanks for that. You've just completely showed your hand in this conversation. Now I know how to proceed with your posts henceforth.

:IGNORE:

livewire said:

ha! couldnt have said it better.

theblueangel said:

Exactly. I am actually stunned by some of the responses in this thread.

Genesia said:

You are delusional.

Okay...say this global warming thing is real....then what are we supposed to do about it that all the money in the world could accomplish. Huh, tell me that. We are all already aware of Gore's stand on this issue, he is not going to cause more people to be aware of it. He is just going to make more money for himself! The books, the tours, the movie. You are ignorant if you don't think this is all just a money ploy. It's not about educating people, it is about money.
Gore's states that all the scientists believe in global warming and they do not. The top scientists do not believe in global warming.
[Edited 3/24/07 9:25am]

NorthernLad said:

You are in denial.

Se7en said:

If industry is to blame for global warming, then why are the polar ice caps shrinking on Mars? SUV-driving Martians, perhaps?

Do you really believe that the sun doesn't have a life cycle...or go through periods of greater or lesser activity? Have you ever seen an aurora? Or had your cable TV or satellite knocked out by solar activity?

We are currently in a period of enhanced solar output. (I won't call it a solar maximum because you can't see those things 'til they're over -- kind of like ranking a tornado on the Fujita scale by the damage it leaves behind.) There have also been periods of reduced solar output that have corresponded with ice ages (from 1645 to 1715, for example).

Is the earth warmer than it has been in...say...30 years? Yes. Can it be irrefutably linked to human activity? No.

Genesia said:

Can it be irrefutably linked to solar cycles alone? No. Best to be mindful as regards human activity then? Yes.

girl66 said:

This is an outright fallacy. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

From Wikipedia (all emphasis mine):

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller probably cooling effects on global mean temperature since 1950.[2] While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.

---

* (For further clarification): The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.

IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[2][3] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[4]

SpecialEd said:

It is one thing to be mindful. It is quite another to destroy the world economy. Okay -- the world economy except for China and India. And Al Gore, of course (who is making money off his alarmism -- and not just with a movie).

livewire said:

That really hurts -- coming from someone who gets his "facts" from wikipedia.

SexyBeautifulOne said:

Or, maybe a new album called Planet Earth will be released in July? (Only saying that b/c the site doesn't say Live Earth, it says Planet Earth.

Genesia said:

"Jane, you ignorant slut!" (c) Dan Ackroyd

I'm only going to respond to you once because I don't want anyone who doesn't fully understand this topic to think that you have anything resembling a point. Because, let's be honest here, we both know you don't.

Every fact in my post is footnoted to its source. Here, let me help you with that:

---

First paragraph:

1. ^ a b c d e f Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers. / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

2. ^ Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, figure SPM-4


Second paragraph:

1. ^ The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. (About IPCC)

2. ^ The Royal Society. [1]. Retrieved December 19, 2006.

3. ^ The Royal Society. [2]. Retrieved December 19 2006.

4. ^ Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change…" .(The Guardian)

---

Whether you agree with these findings or not, the notion that they are invalidated simply for appearing on Wikipedia is laughable. Each point is sourced; you're tilting at windmills, grasping at straws, etc.

I write about domestic (U.S.) and global news for a living. Don't impugn my ability to check for source materials. "This ain't my first time at the rodeo." (c) Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford.

For future reference, putting the word facts in quotation marks won't make said facts any less true -- no matter how badly your argument depends on it.

Now, come back as you will, but I'm through with you.

I'm torn about global warming.

I don't know how to swim.

So when the icecaps melts,
I'm fucked.

However,
because it will be so warm,
I won't have to worry about if I should wear a sweater when I drown.

jone70 said:

The reason I asked this^ was b/c I suspected that those who are most against the idea of him doing Live Earth don't believe that global warming is "real". Reading the responses to the thread it seems I was right. So do we only like Prince to perform for shows/causes *we* believe in? Maybe. I disliked the fact that he appeared on AI, Superbowl & did Vegas because I thought it was diametrically opposed to what his music and professional behavior/decisions have been about throughout his career. How can I judge whether this Live Earth thing is something "he would do" or whether it fits in with the type of person he is? I don't know him personally, I only see his professional side and he has done charity concerts, written songs where proceeds go to hurricane victims, etc. so it doesn't seem that far fetched for him to do this, which relates to the environment.

I'm more surprised he agreed to do that Citi-Advantage concert in San Fran. Whoring yourself out to Citigroup, a corporation that paid $215 million to settle allegations of widespread & deceptive lending practices (mostly to minorities and working class) seems more out of character to me...

Illustrator said:

LOL - I like your post. Its funny in a sad way - very clever, you from Europe ??

nahhh.. just kiddin.

Peace yall. one world. one love.

www.myspace.com/lovesquad

livewire said:

People who are secure in their opinions and actually know how to argue them don't feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks like the one illustrated above.

If they recycled that IPCC report into toilet paper, I wouldn't stoop to wipe my ass with it. It's writing was driven by politics, not science.

You're not going to answer, right? Good.

Next!

theblueangel said:

cosign, maybe when we're wearing oxygen masks theyll believe it

livewire said:

Great post, but I doubt it will do any good. Once someone drinks the kool-aid, they usually refuse to admit they are wrong.