http://www.earthhour.org/home/

This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming. WWF are urging the world to VOTE EARTH and reach the target of 1 billion votes, which will be presented to world leaders at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.

This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is the chance for the people of the world to make their voice heard.

Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007, when 2.2 million homes and businesses switched off their lights for one hour. In 2008 the message had grown into a global sustainability movement, with 50 million people switching off their lights. Global landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, Rome’s Colosseum, the Sydney Opera House and the Coca Cola billboard in Times Square all stood in darkness.

In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.

We all have a vote, and every single vote counts. Together we can take control of the future of our planet, for future generations.

VOTE EARTH by simply switching off your lights for one hour, and join the world for Earth Hour.

Saturday, March 28, 8:30-9:30pm.

I would add that Egypt borders the Gaza strip, and has not allowed aid through. I would also hasten to add that I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing so at the request of Israel, but I don't know either way. Something to think about.

Separately, dead tofu, I will admit that I have very little knowledge of the Talmud, but I would say that I personally disavow all of the statements on that page, whether they are translated properly or taken out of context, and doubt that you could find ten thousand Jews in the entire world who agreed with those statements.

I know that you could find similarly abhorrent statements in the texts of any of the major religions, and that those statements have very little to do with the actual practice of most of the members of those religions.

I also don't much like Menachem Begin. He's kind a Nixonian figure to Israel; he led violent activity against the British before Israeli independence, signed a peace treaty with Egypt (giving back the Sinai), and then ordered the unsuccessful invasion of Lebanon after the attempted assassination of Israel's diplomat to the UK.

He's the quote from the speech he gave after the no-confidence vote in the Knesset regarding the war in Lebanon:

"The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents."

He's talking about killing people who try kill Israeli children.

See this site for more examples of misquotes: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=766&x_context=2

Fjordman is a quality writer on European social issues.
Lol, yeah, he's from Trøndelag, Muslim population: 3. He doesnt know shit. I live in one of the most multi-cultural streets in this country, and I've got nothing to complain about. I wont say immigration is problem-free, but people like him presents a one-sided propaganda-like image, Take for instance his comparison of Malmø and Copenhagen, this is classic statistics-poisoning, As far as I know Denmark is one of the most liberal immigration-states in scandinavia, Malmø may have a higher percentage of Muslims, but Copenhagen still has lots, besides, the high crime rate COULD be directly linked to immigration, and it could be a number of other social, economic and security issues. Most likely its a combination of all of the above. When morons like fjordman presents statistics, they are looking to prove a point, which is the first flaw in reading statistics, and a crime of sorts when presenting them.


In short, the fjordman fellow is certainly not a respected authority on "European social issues", and given this first article that I've now seen of him, I dont consider him a quality writer on the issue either. More likely he's a scared little redneck in a remote part of Trøndelag typing this baloney with a shotgun at his side, knowing nothing about immigrants nor immigration.

>> ^sirex:
winston, find below required evidence of why your argument is crap.
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9
i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.


You quoted some statistics, and this makes his argument invalid? Then you say, "Ive had this argument before". Appealing to past arguments as though they make you right, appealing to false authority.

Link to sources, bibliography. Until then your argument is unsustainable.

Your argument, is a very gentle Non Sequitur. It has no context, other than you had this discussion with another member. Also, linking to research does nothing unless you have good thoughts to go along with your quotes. Hence the confusion I have here.

Before you attack an argument make sure that you have your sources posted. Here is what I have from a Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Army Ret. Quoted from his book, titled On killing. "Lt. Col. Grossman a former army ranger and paratrooper taught psychology at west point is currently professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University."

The statistics are in here, and found by Interpol.
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm


EDIT: I do realize that your comment is flame bait.

By the way, this was really a long drawn out appeal to authority. And also a plug for the book because I think it is good!

winston, find below required evidence of why your argument is crap.

MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9

i've had this discussion with people on videosift before and cant be bothered getting into a flame fest about it again, but feel free to private message me and i'll link you up with a bunch more data.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wow, copenhagen, street performance' to 'wow, copenhagen, street performance, jon magnusson, 1988, the boss' - edited by maatc

I always get a good laugh out of those subjective Copenhagen interpration zealots, mindlessly repeating their mantra: "The universe does not exist without conscious observers, wah, wah!". No wonder some take this as a substitute for religion, mysterious bullshit and all. Sorry guys but in the off chance that the Copenhagen interpretation is ever found to be the best one (dunno how you'd find that out... maybe in retrospect when an entirely new physics paradigm comes up), it will probably be in the form of one of the objective or agnostic variants.

>> ^coupland:
Stephen Hawking must be rolling over in his grave...


I doubt it, if for no other reason than he's still alive.

The vid didn't bother me any but I don't have to take every point as proved, it's more the possibilities and questions that I love. Years ago when I first discussed nanotech with people most thought it some combination between sci-fi and a scam, these days most take it for granted that it's not only real but coming up on us fast. I still have my doubts about some of the particulars such as them ever letting us have anything like a desktop manufacturer, but in a broad brush sense it was worth the time even for the parts that were wrong. It made us think about the possibilities and get used to the idea.

I'd agree that the vid seemed disjointed and skipped from topic to topic without much explanation, didn't cover any in the depth needed to understand much, but if for no other reason it deserves a home in the science channel for the debate it sparked. Anyone interested now has the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality suggested by sineral and other suggestions for research from others. We aren't going to solve the worlds problems from here anyway. But if it makes us think and even ask some questions we're doing more than most are with their spare time.

Sigh, I had typed up a half a page worth of comment and realized I needed another half page more so decided to just give up. Now I see SDGundamX's comment and wish I had posted mine.

So here's the short version. This video is misleading; in at least one spot it is misleading to the point of spouting hogwash. It mixes together separate phenomena from cosmology, quantum mechanics, and plain probability without clearly labeling them or distinguishing between them. Their "parallel universe theory" is not a theory, but an interpretation, of which there are multiple, of quantum mechanics; it's not even the most widely accepted interpretation. If you're interested in the phenomena they fumble over in this video then google, or just wikipeida, these terms: Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds intepretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality.

I think it is in the midst of a transition from the last time I was there. While I didn't stay long it seemed a mix of the older, sprawling, I guess "old school" design mixed here and there with newer buildings few and far between. I adore the country too, somehow though the city doesn't have it's niche yet. Maybe more traffic from Copenhagen will help, time should tell.

The turning torso almost reminds me of the placement of the Sony Center in Berlin, a masterpiece of urban architecture surrounded in part by generations of other style buildings.

Ohh GoogleFu!

On CATO Insitute:

The Institute's work on global warming has been a particular source of controversy. The Institute has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Balling and Christy have since made statements indicating that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to anthropogenic activity:

No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance.

In response to the World Watch Report in May 2003 that linked climate change and severe weather events, Jerry Taylor said:

It's false. There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#On_environmental_policy

On Kyoto's CBA:

"Economists have been trying to analyze the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. There is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables. Some of the estimates indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming.[citation needed] However, a study in Nature found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."

The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defense moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP."

Curbing climate change is going to incur costs, however production costs increasing is a short term goal that is recoverable over the longer term. Our planet and climate is not recoverable if the extremes are met.

I mean the argument is like saying there is no point to quit smoking or even say you are planning to quit smoking because the cots of me being more nervous and edgy is too much.

Kyoto represents political commitment, something that we can hold governments to and build on to more issues. Saying its going to incur costs is a moot point. Of course it will cost, what do you expect? You can have something for nothing. But yeah I would pay more to have a normal weather system.

>> ^lertad:
second question first
As far as I can tell they are certainly viable and great alternatives, but can they be mass produced and will people around the world really adopt it?

yes, it is possible. after all, people would have been asking the same questions at the beginning of the 20th century about the viability of automobiles when they first appeared.

Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?

No, it will never be sufficient. Compare Detroit, a typical American city, and Copenhagen, a typical West European city. Both have roughly the same population at about 1 million. However, Copenhagen is about twice as densely populated as Detroit meaning the same amount of people live on smaller area of land. While only being twice as dense, they consume only 1/9th of the energy of their American counterpart. And of course that has to do with better mass transportation as well as higher rates of walking and bicycling. Alternative fuels and hybrid/electric cars are only a small part of the solution.

You really want the magical amount the recipe is:
1 Lucky Strike
1 30 mg Nicorette patch
1 stick Nicorrette gum
1 3gm pinch, of Copenhagen

simulateneously -
sure cure for nicotine frustration.....

after precisly ten seconds of digging....

MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9

so whatever your doing, isnt working.

now, we have deer here, and i've no inclination to go kill them. If you said to protect against bear then maybe i could see the argument, but then a handgun isnt going to cut it anyhow. And arguming that why arnt knifves and blunt instruments banned ? why should they be ? their job isnt to kill. The floor will kill you if you hit it hard enough.

besides which (after anouther ten seconds of digging - right from your own doj.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.png

This is at Tivoli in Copenhagen--my home town! It was broadcast by Danish Radio television at the time; their archive is probably the ultimate source for this. One or two of the songs from this show also appear on the "Europe 72
" album ("Hurts me too" and/or "Ramble on Rose" I think, but not this "Truckin'").

The entire set can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C334E102FF4A6189