Live Earth Global Concerts Reach More Than 10 Million Online

At 3 p.m. EDT on July 7, Live Earth concerts on MSN reached a total of more than 10 million video streams and achieved the most simultaneous viewers of any online concert ever. Live Earth's 24 hours of music across 7 continents delivered a worldwide call to action and the solutions necessary to answer that call. Live Earth marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign to drive individuals, corporations and governments to take action to solve the climate crisis. Live Earth concerts took place in New York, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Hamburg.

"History is being made today. Millions of people around the world have joined together to fight the climate crisis. The over 10 million streams MSN has delivered so far today represent a milestone in live Internet broadcasting. We expect to see an even greater number of streams after the concerts are over as people return to watch their favorite performances or enjoy them for the first time if they missed the concerts live," said Joanne Bradford, corporate vice president and chief media officer of MSN. On-demand footage of all performances, along with artist interviews, backstage footage, easy searching capabilities for specific songs, artists and more, will be available online from all eight official concerts for the next several weeks at no charge.

Link: Live Earth
News source: Press Release

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Taiwan companies team up on Microsoft smartphones

Next Story

Samsung, Ericsson Agree to Cross Patents

44 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

people tend to get desperate and make pointless responses when the facts don't fit their personal point of view. see example above.

The fact is that the Live Earth concert was a HUGE disappointment in terms of its viewership in the U.S.
I watched it and enjoyed the music, and considering i was one of the 2.8 million, i wonder how many of that 1% were people like me. Al Gore has failed in his attempt to make fighting "global warming" a part of pop culture.

People tend to make baseless arguments without support when they have none. See example above.

The fact is whether or not Live Earth did well in the US means absolutely squat regarding the issue and just because the majority of Americans may or may not believe does not make it so in either case. Regardless, the fact that someone like Bush was elected not once but twice gives me little faith in this country's overall intelligence.

Ratings for Al Gore's Live Earth concerts are coming in and they are not good. On NBC it did worse than normal programming for that slot, which includes repeats and NHL hockey, and finished in last place. In the UK, only 2 million watched, as opposed to 10 million for the Live 8 concerts. Perhaps people were just outside enjoying the beautiful, slightly cooler than average temperatures over the weekend. Or, more likely, people are starting to recognize the hypocrisy of environmentalists putting on an event like this, that uses up more energy than some entire countries use.

Well, I'm happy for all those people with "slightly cooler than average temperatures", since I had to stay indoors to watch the show because where I live, the temperature reached and all-time record high of 107° F. on a day when the average high temperature is 82° F.

Which, I might add, is in the northern Rockies of Montana where it typically used to snow up until June almost every year!

Octol said,
Well, I'm happy for all those people with "slightly cooler than average temperatures", since I had to stay indoors to watch the show because where I live, the temperature reached and all-time record high of 107° F. on a day when the average high temperature is 82° F.

Which, I might add, is in the northern Rockies of Montana where it typically used to snow up until June almost every year!

After researching Montana's weather (using the NWS information), I was unable to find any temperatures reported at 107°F. Where abouts in Montana are you from? Most temperatures in Montana reported around the mid 80s and some in the low 90s, and only 1 at 101°F, but it didn't even break a record. What I did notice that in 1894, temperatures were around 103 in multiple areas! I'm sure the people living at that time would love the cool temperatures that we are having today!

In other news...

First snow since 1928 in Argentina

People walk by a public park under a surprise snowfall in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 9, 2007.


The last time it snowed in the Argentine capital was July 1928.


Local media reported at least three people died in Argentina due to the low temperatures, one of them in Buenos Aires.


---
http://english.sina.com/p/1/2007/0710/118070.html

A load of rubbish if you ask me , trying to do a live aid/8 is just pathetic no matter what the cause is , then again i dont agree with all this humans are responsible for heating up the planet crap theres a much much bigger picture than a stupid 3%co2 emissions that the humans cause, sorry but its just Hype with NO real Hard evidanse , just a way to tax the hell out of stuff even more only crisis i can see is the fact they dont understand the weather and want to blame the fact they dont know jack on humans as its the easiest get out , sorry but to say that mother nature is being changed by humans is just a pathetic notion , look how much effect the sun and the moon have on the planet let alone the sodding sola system , theres just too many factors and to say humans cause the so called change is pathetic.

funny how they cant predict the weather for more than 5 days acuratly yet can say 20 years from now the earth will be screwed cos of "Climate Change" Please Give Me A Sodding Break LOL

Im with you Fubar. This is a huge marketing ploy and it's genius. People like Al Gore and Micheal Moore know there are 100s of millions of shallow morons that will eat this stuff up with a spoon. The damage that ONE night of global concerts did the the environment is the equivalent of a year of energy consumption of several small nations.

There is one thing that is never mentioned by the likes of Al Gore:
Power plants burn billions of tons of coal each year, and since this coal contains radioactive uranium and thorium, burning coal actually puts 2,000 tons of radioactivity into our atmosphere each and every single year!

Some facts:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-...xt/colmain.html

Getting rid of those alone and going nuke(the safest, cleanest, cheapest renewable energy) would have the fastest positive impact on the environment. Al Gore never even mentions. Hes personally reesponsible for hundreds of them being built while he was VP.

I hate how so many people are easily duped by frauds like Gore. If you really want to help the environment, you're really worried about it, you should run from Gore and everyone associated with him. THEY DONT CARE!
This is criminal at this point.

Oh brother. Get a grip, you two.
First off, there's no real debate in the scientific community anymore about global warming; There's hasn't been for years. Man-made causes are most definitely the prime factor in the global warming equation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot or an apologist for the big energy companies (big oil, big coal, etc.)

It's the same bull**** strategy that big tobacco used to keep smoking social acceptable decades after the US Surgeon General warned that it was hazardous to your health.

Croquant said,
Oh brother. Get a grip, you two.
First off, there's no real debate in the scientific community anymore about global warming; There's hasn't been for years. Man-made causes are most definitely the prime factor in the global warming equation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot or an apologist for the big energy companies (big oil, big coal, etc.)

It's the same bull**** strategy that big tobacco used to keep smoking social acceptable decades after the US Surgeon General warned that it was hazardous to your health.


oh shut up , if you think us mere humans have more power than mother nature to screw around with the eco system and alike then your a bigger fool than the rest of the nuts who think man made global emissions are the cause of global warming , i know lets ignore the rest of the sola system lets ignore facts about the world having a natural warming up and cooling down periods lets just ignore the fact that the moon has no power on what it does to the earth let alone the sun , i bet you also think that the earth having 8 moons is bull**** as well , please don't take me for a fool i know alot more than the people who the governments are trying to fool and i say this for the fact i take into account the millions of different factors that contribute keeping this bloody planet alive , humans are nothing , look at the bigger picture screw worring about global warming the main thing you nust should be worried about is yellow stone park erupting , not only will it send out untolds amounts of co2 it will also destroy the earth oh no lets all ban volcanoes get a sodding grip go back to living in mud huts and bad health if your that concerned and give us lot a break with all this crap

oh and for your info im not "brainwashed" by any corp crap nor do i care for it , im not easily mislead myfriend i look at the facts i look at other factors in the whole thing and i dont just go on what the media or governments say regarding the issue.

Croquant said,
Oh brother. Get a grip, you two.
First off, there's no real debate in the scientific community anymore about global warming; There's hasn't been for years. Man-made causes are most definitely the prime factor in the global warming equation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot or an apologist for the big energy companies (big oil, big coal, etc.)

It's the same bull**** strategy that big tobacco used to keep smoking social acceptable decades after the US Surgeon General warned that it was hazardous to your health.

Croquant you are exactly the type of person Im talking about and I want to thank you for making my point. You are a tool for Gore. The debate is NEVER over when it comes to science. It makes me frustrated because you probably actually care about the enviroment, but you're ignorant.

The earth is warming, theres no doubt about that but to think you can actually stop it in its tracks and reverse it is just retarded.

This is nothing compared to the catastrophic climate changes that have happened over and over in the Earth's 4 BILLION year history. There have been 5 mass extinctions on this planet that we know of before humans existed. Fires raging all over the planet unchallenged for months and years. Volcanic activity of the likes we cant imagine, meteor strikes, comet strikes.. magnetic pole shifts...nuclear winters on scales that make what our nukes would cause look like mouse farts.

This hysteria is idiotic and the fact that you tools are actually saying things like "THE DEBAT IS OVER" is incredibly ignorant.

PiracyX said,
I agree with you lot. This is just a way to get Money and hype it all up for nothing.

the real sad thing out of all this hyped up crap is third world countries are being denied to burning their own fossil fuels by western countries cos its to cut down co2 emissions , they have to rely on sola power which is the most INEFFECIANT way of electricity , so all these eco warriors are basicly denying third world countries to right to have and live better lives , its pure disgusting selfishness on there behalf

solardog said,
The debate is NEVER over when it comes to science

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...debate_is_over/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/...ce/Skeptics.asp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=&a...49533FA77189693
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070202a.htm
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/gro...imateChange.pdf

Pull your head out of the sand. The debate around climate change is over. Deal with it.

solardog said,
The earth is warming, theres no doubt about that but to think you can actually stop it in its tracks and reverse it is just retarded.

And you call ME ignorant.

So much smarter to do nothing about it right? I mean, since you agree that the earth IS warming, then what's you plan to deal with the melting ice caps? That's a fact. They are melting. No ifs, ands, or buts. So, what's your plan to deal with that? How about the rising sea levels that are a consequence of the melting ice caps? Should we start to do something when half of Los Angeles is underwater, or should we wait until it's all underwater? Or, perhaps we should follow your apparent plan and not do anything, ever.

Didn't your mother tell you that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Croquant said,

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...debate_is_over/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/...ce/Skeptics.asp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=&a...49533FA77189693
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070202a.htm
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/gro...imateChange.pdf

Pull your head out of the sand. The debate around climate change is over. Deal with it.


And you call ME ignorant.

So much smarter to do nothing about it right? I mean, since you agree that the earth IS warming, then what's you plan to deal with the melting ice caps? That's a fact. They are melting. No ifs, ands, or buts. So, what's your plan to deal with that? How about the rising sea levels that are a consequence of the melting ice caps? Should we start to do something when half of Los Angeles is underwater, or should we wait until it's all underwater? Or, perhaps we should follow your apparent plan and not do anything, ever.

Didn't your mother tell you that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

your funny , you really are bless

Its actually still heavily disputed whether we are causing 'global warming' (presuming it does exist).

Sure, burning all this fuel isn't doing any good - but it could also be having such a minute impact and other factors being the main influence.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be more environmentally friendly, we should! trying to be carbon free is a good thing and as we have the technology to do it - so why not?

The MOST MAJOR CAUSE of climate change is ACTUALLY generally agreed by most scientists to be the non perfect movement and spin of the earth around the sun. Its been proven that over time the earth gets colder and colder and hits whats commonly called an ice age, then it gets warmer and warmer and then cooler again... and the pattern repeats what appears to be around every 100,000 years - as at the moment we are on the increasing temperature part of the graph I'd be more worried if the temperate was getting colder! This 100,000 year increase and decrease isn't perfectly smooth however... over shorter periods it also fluctuates (sort of like 2 steps forward one steps back style, walking like this for a mile then walking back in similar fashion to where you started, and repeat). So even when on the increasing temperature bit of the worlds 'clock' its hard to say what should be happening to the weather. Let alone trying to prove for definite that burning fuel is being the major factor on this climate change we appear to be having.

All the time statistics are quoted.... something like "its the most rain in july we've had for 100 years"... but why not every month? and why 100 years ago did it rain more? And most likely before that it rained even more.

Fubar said,

the real sad thing out of all this hyped up crap is third world countries are being denied to burning their own fossil fuels by western countries cos its to cut down co2 emissions , they have to rely on sola power which is the most INEFFECIANT way of electricity , so all these eco warriors are basicly denying third world countries to right to have and live better lives , its pure disgusting selfishness on there behalf

Also the demand for corn has gone sky high leading to price of corn going through the roof and seriously threatening people who rely on corn as their main source of food. These environazis dont think of these things tho and they really dont care. Everything these people touch turns to crap.

plastikaa said,
Its actually still heavily disputed whether we are causing 'global warming' (presuming it does exist).

Sure, burning all this fuel isn't doing any good - but it could also be having such a minute impact and other factors being the main influence.


plastikaa said,
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be more environmentally friendly, we should! trying to be carbon free is a good thing and as we have the technology to do it - so why not?

Why not indeed?

Octol said,
1) We're putting ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and;
2) The planet is getting hotter on a scale that parallels the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

1) Prices are going up
2) I'm getting older

Hmm, hopefully there will be a depression right around the time I retire, so I can enjoy my nest egg and be young at the same time

Now I don't mean to question your PhD in climatology but in February when scientists from around the world went to Montreal to discuss climate change their consensus was undisputed amongst them that global warming was caused by us humans. I'm not sure if this was brought up at the Republcian convention but 200 scientists unanimously agreeing on something IS hard evidence, however you must have some kind of convincing evidence to the contrary so pelase explain to us what else besides our 150 years of automobiles and factories caused the global temprature to rise and melt 60% of Greenland pernamently? Was it homosexuals, teachers who teach evolution or liberals who are apposed to the Iraq war?

black_death said,
Now I don't mean to question your PhD in climatology but in February when scientists from around the world went to Montreal to discuss climate change their consensus was undisputed amongst them that global warming was caused by us humans. I'm not sure if this was brought up at the Republcian convention but 200 scientists unanimously agreeing on something IS hard evidence, however you must have some kind of convincing evidence to the contrary so pelase explain to us what else besides our 150 years of automobiles and factories caused the global temprature to rise and melt 60% of Greenland pernamently? Was it homosexuals, teachers who teach evolution or liberals who are apposed to the Iraq war?

only 200 hundred eh , ONLY 200 bare that in mind considering there's far far many scientists out there , big whoop 200 people decided eggs where bad , WOW

[quote=Octol said,]

No its not rocket science its much more complex, thats why we landed on the moon in the 60s and only just figuring out global warming now. Purely saying your house it getting hotter because the heater is on is nonsense, if your house is letting out more heat than the heater is producing its going to get colder. The whole thing is dependant on so many other factors such as insulation, drafts, outdoor temperature etc. Something else could be the main cause, we just might not yet know it, don't believe just because you can't see something it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it definitely has a minute effect it, what Im suggesting is that its hard to calculate on something the scale of the earth with current computer climate models, so far the ones we have are extremely poor and unreliable - we can't even accurately predict current climate, what appear to be anomalies appear all the time, which we don't predict correctly, though later they are sometimes explained and understood.

In developed countries people worry about wind turbines looking ugly in a field near their homes and devaluing their house... where in some places around the world they think they will blow the clouds away and stop it raining and cause drought - this alone shows how much ideas change, and how wrong people can be (and maybe how wrong minded people have become in todays society)

... and black_death ...

many scientists that agree the problem exists do so for financial gain, out of the 200 unanimously agreeing scientists it would be interesting to see how many of these have no financial link. After all - most experts in the field of global warming are probably funded by governments, the minute they say they think its not a problem there funding probably disappears - and/or even linked to the development of technology to reduce our impact on global warming.

I'd say I would generally agree what we are doing can't be helping the environment, but I have honestly no idea how much we are effecting it. Mostly our fault or hardly our fault? - it doesnt matter I'm happy and willing to try to reduce our impact however small it is. Is it worth the risk?

Whats the point in gambling the planet? when we can stop any impact we have upon the earth.

Fubar said,
only 200 hundred eh , ONLY 200 bare that in mind considering there's far far many scientists out there , big whoop 200 people decided eggs where bad , WOW :D

your argument against my entire post is that? yes there are way more scientists in the world but ALL of the scientists who publicily spoke about or published something about global warming agree that its caused by humans, there probably are scientists out there with conflciting opinions they just havent gathered enough evidence to prove their point. so if all the scientists in the given field who wish to publicly speak about the issue agree with one side (which hasnt ever even happened before) then naturually they are most likely to be right.

plastikaa said,
... and black_death ...

many scientists that agree the problem exists do so for financial gain, out of the 200 unanimously agreeing scientists it would be interesting to see how many of these have no financial link. After all - most experts in the field of global warming are probably funded by governments, the minute they say they think its not a problem there funding probably disappears - and/or even linked to the development of technology to reduce our impact on global warming.

Most corporations in western/capitalist society benefit from pollution, global warming, etc. because they profit off of our laziness. What corporations could anti-climate change scientists be backed by? Solar panel manufacturers? Health food stores? Compared to the automotive industry, oil companies, companies that use wasteful packaging, etc, etc. which companeis do you think would have more money to bribe scientists with?

plastikaa said,

I'm not saying it definitely has a minute effect it, what Im suggesting is that its hard to calculate on something the scale of the earth with current computer climate models, so far the ones we have are extremely poor and unreliable - we can't even accurately predict current climate, what appear to be anomalies appear all the time, which we don't predict correctly, though later they are sometimes explained and understood.

Hard to calculate precisely.

The insurance industry makes a ton of money on life insurance because they know that a certain number of people in any group are going to die in a given time period, (within a predictable margin of error). They don't know which individuals are going to die – or when – but they always predict correctly within that margin. The correct number of people die, and they never lose money on that gamble. Never.

It's hardly different with global warming. When you're putting 17+ trillion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year (never mind the other GH gasses), it's going to get warmer. We may not be able to predict precisely how much or how quickly, but then again we don't need to: we've dumped massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atomosphere, and it has gotten warmer. Much warmer:

If you drank in a bar every night, blacked out, and then woke up every morning with two black eyes, it would be reasonable to assume that the alcohol had something to do with the injuries. To say that maybe various total strangers randomly break into your house every night after you go to bed and beat you up for fun is simply delusional – though of course it's possible. Needless to say, that would not be the case. It would be all the alcohol you'd been drinking, and if you didn't stop it, you'd eventually end up dead.

In the same vein, all the evidence for the accelerated warming we're experiencing points to excessive fossil fuel consumption. For people to continue to deny that and to continue with their profligate energy consumption habits is no less suicidal. It'll probably just take a little bit longer to happen.

That graph shows just 120 years of history, how about 450,000 years of polar temp...


As you can see from using a 1960-1990 baseline, over the last 450,000 years the earth has been much cooler most of the time, but it peaks consistently and we are in one of the peaks now. And the temperature trend changes too, you can see that in your graph alone... it peaks and dips then peaks and level then peaks.

Its even been shown that the suns position in the galaxy seems to relate to weather changes but no-one can explain why. Sure our gas isn't doing any good and isn't helping... and yes its proven to heat our planet up... but no computer to date has even came close to accurately predicting how much we are responsible for. In fact very recently some new research has been bought about suggesting that carbon dioxide is actually a catalyst causing the oceans to release methane which you might know traps a lot more heat than carbon dioxide does. Tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures were once 42 degC (14 degC higher than today), around 100 millions years ago, and with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere then in current climate models they cant get anything near that temperature, even if you add the methane manually to the system equal to what there was 100 million years ago its not even close, if anything its now suggested we are way underestimating what cause we could be having! And no-one has yet explained why there was such a high temperature then.

No this isn't proving its no happening, the contrary possibly, but more my point its proving the whole "carbon is heating the planet" is a lot more complex than many seem to think, and no we don't really understand it very well still as its such a huge complex system.

Note the little squiggle at the end of your graph. Doesn't that tell you that something is different? In fact the middle of that last squiggle encompasses the time when humans began practicing agriculture in a big way. The behavioral change represented by that practice was that human beings more or less stopped chasing their food and began staying indefinitely in one place and growing or raising it themselves.

As one writer put it (sorry, I can't recall his name), hunter-gatherers follow the food: if it starts getting colder, they keep ahead of the ice by moving to warmer climates along with their food. Farmers, on the other hand, are not inclined to give up their hard earned land and living; when it starts getting colder, they just throw another log on the fire. And burning carbon-based fuels (like wood) put carbon into the atmosphere. Large-scale, human-generated greenhouse gas emissions more or less started there.

Sure, the above is an oversimplification, but it's true enough. The fact is that if we had not come along and started altering the atmospheric equation, we'd most likely already be well into the next glaciation period with the planet growing colder instead of warmer – and your graph is convincing evidence of that fact.

Look at it again: in each discrete period, the temperature drops precipitously and then fluctuates, but still trends downward. Then it all of a sudden it rapidly rises 10-12° C, only to begin the same downward pattern again. The details of the fluctuations vary in the different periods, but one thing remains the same in all periods except the last one: the primary temperature rise and fall is straight up then straight down. And all else being equal, the pattern should more or less continue as before – but it has not. And since I'm not aware of any (relatively) recent large-scale environmental events that would account for that change in the pattern, the only significant factor left that I can see is human activity.

Comments?

Octol said,
Note the little squiggle at the end of your graph. Doesn't that tell you that something is different?

It says SOMETHING. Something like: We have millions of moronic zealots running around today making apocalyptic claims about how we all need to stop using gas and recycle everything we own because of a tiny SQUIGGLE in a graph which is part of the NATURAL earth temperature cycle.

The Temperature fluctuated on the first peak on the graph, so its not a first occurance.

Also the "current" heat fluctuation at the end is over a period of 30,000 years, each pixel represents 2,000 years! I dont think humans are to blame for the last 30,000 years... the variation is more likely due to being able to calculate better data from more recent times (these things are usually done from ice, soil and stone etc. which after longer periods become more difficult to "get hold of" ) - each data point will represent a calculated period and then they are joined up - in something such as this only "found" data can be used, hench the data point intervals aren't equal - and more heavily distributed in the very last bit.

In some places they are closely packed together - and when the data is more heavily condensed on the graph, the temperature also fluctuates in these shorter periods, reading the graph in more detail suggests that temperate does fluctuate a lot all the time, if you could get more data and calculate the bits between widely spread data points - they would also most likely fluctuate in between and not be linear.

Yeah, more and better data from recent times could be a problem for sure. I'm going to have to look at this a bit more to see if I can figure it out.

As Arnold said: "I'll be back".

Its not just your carbon footprint people should be worried about either though - your car, your house and your products and food all do roughly the same damage over a year. And this is looking purely at "carbon footprint" cows release huge masses of methane which is much worse, cows are suggest to be doing more damage than cars to the environment - so people argue they 'need' cars - but do we really need so many cows? Not really but beefs nice, but maybe just think about how much of it you eat. It supposedly takes about £20,000 ($40,000) of solar panels to offset just one cow. - thats a pretty expensive cow if they started taxing beef so they could offset the damage with alternatives.

plastikaa said,
...beefs nice, but maybe just think about how much of it you eat.

Well, I'm pretty "green" there: I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat cows. In which regard I should mention that it takes six pounds of vegetable protein to produce one pound of beef. So besides the environmental cost, there's also a humanitarian dimension to this: you can feed one hell of a lot of people with all the grain that ranchers feed to cows!

Let me also add that I live in Montana – so my attitude isn't greatly appreciated by all the ranchers in this "red" state!

True, but it probably influenced a good percentage of the people who watched or were there to make some changes which in turn will probably save 100+ times the CO2.