Bono, Al Gore

[Dashing Bob S]

Two fat, tedious, hypocritical short-arse blobs.

[Gus]

Two fat, tedious, hypocritical short-arse blobs.

I hate preaching Bono with a passion, complete tool

[Betty Boop]

Two fat, tedious, hypocritical short-arse blobs.

:agree: Lecturing us mere mortals about our carbon footprints, as they zoom around the globe in their private jets! :grr:

[Woody1985]

:agree: Lecturing us mere mortals about our carbon footprints, as they zoom around the globe in their private jets! :grr:

Bono's a tit. Would be ironic if he died in a plane crash.

I read today that they made £72 million quid from their tour.

I wonder what the CF of that was, given they had that massive stage and probably about 80 tours dates. Imbecile.

On top of that, his music is ***** IMO.

[steakbake]

Bono is like a rich man's Geldof. Both are monumental twats.

[Steve-O]

When was the last time Bono lectured anyone about carbon footprints?

Another easy target :yawn:

[lyonhibs]

Bono is like a rich man's Geldof. Both are monumental twats.

Should stick to what they do best (or at least in Bono's case, Geldof has no real speciality apart from preaching a load of sanctimonious *****e) - i.e. making music!!

If they really cared for Africa/famine/drought/the plight of the lesser spotted long eared Ethiopian Desert Bunny as opposed to wanton self-promotion with the convenient subplot of "helping others", they'd simply donate, strings free and with no associated "Charity concerts", the required sum from their VAST personal wealth to the causes concerned.

They don't because they'd much rather tell other people how to run their lives or how they should be doing their jobs.

If Blair, Brown or Obama came up to Bono and told him that "uno, dos, tres, quatorce" makes no sense whatsoever, do you think anyone would pay them any attention?

No, and rightly so, therefore I fail to see what qualifies decent rockstars to ride slipshod over the international politics scene, as opposed to just giving a large wad of cash without the associated "guilt trip" for the rest of us.

[Steve-O]

Should stick to what they do best (or at least in Bono's case, Geldof has no real speciality apart from preaching a load of sanctimonious *****e) - i.e. making music!!

If they really cared for Africa/famine/drought/the plight of the lesser spotted long eared Ethiopian Desert Bunny as opposed to wanton self-promotion with the convenient subplot of "helping others", they'd simply donate, strings free and with no associated "Charity concerts", the required sum from their VAST personal wealth to the causes concerned.

They don't because they'd much rather tell other people how to run their lives or how they should be doing their jobs.

If Blair, Brown or Obama came up to Bono and told him that "uno, dos, tres, quatorce" makes no sense whatsoever, do you think anyone would pay them any attention?

No, and rightly so, therefore I fail to see what qualifies decent rockstars to ride slipshod over the international politics scene, as opposed to just giving a large wad of cash without the associated "guilt trip" for the rest of us.

I think you'll find Bono does donate PLENTY of his time and money but doesn't broadcast it everytime he does (he'd get slaughtered for that as well no doubt) so people have this misconception that he donates nothing but tells everyone else to do so!

One rich man cannot solve all the world's ills, hence the appeals.

"We must stop the spread of AIDS in Africa" = Bono is an erse? :bye:

edit - he also knows that the Spanish is wrong in that song btw! :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

When was the last time Bono lectured anyone about carbon footprints?

Another easy target :yawn:

The Live Nation U2 360 Tour has committed to reducing their environmental impact through a comprehensive reduction and offset strategy. As part of this, the Tour will be offsetting their emissions from both the 2009 and 2010 legs. Live Nation invites you to do the same by first and foremost reducing your impact by using public transportation, carpooling ( PickupPal ), biking, or walking to the show. If you would like to make your travel to the show completely carbon neutral purchase an offset from one of the options below. Learn more...

http://offsetoptions.cloudapp.net/u2-360/Offsetting.aspx?lang=en&user=db207972-5aa2-4d26-8e2a-7f5424846a1b

[camthebam]

Gore, I don't know much about. Humiliated as an ex-pres of America and I've seen his film, which is hugely debated by science. Global warming's a moot subject AFAIC. He could well be a mercenary. I don't know.

Bono. Hmm.

I've always like U2's music. Saw them at Croke Park a few years back. Easily the best concert I've been at. He can woo a crowd. And "Desire" is one of my favourite songs.

And the political issues he raises are from the good side of the heart ASFAIC. And apparently he does donate a fair bit to charity. Aye, I know he's a hypocritical pompous twat but in the world of celebrity I reckon there's worse.

He ain't the messiah. But there's worse.

In short my dashing friend, I tend to not concur. But know where you're coming from.

[Pete]

The Live Nation U2 360 Tour has committed to reducing their environmental impact through a comprehensive reduction and offset strategy. As part of this, the Tour will be offsetting their emissions from both the 2009 and 2010 legs. Live Nation invites you to do the same by first and foremost reducing your impact by using public transportation, carpooling ( PickupPal ), biking, or walking to the show. If you would like to make your travel to the show completely carbon neutral purchase an offset from one of the options below. Learn more...

http://offsetoptions.cloudapp.net/u2-360/Offsetting.aspx?lang=en&user=db207972-5aa2-4d26-8e2a-7f5424846a1b

Get lost.

What a lot of pretentious crap!

[Steve-O]

The Live Nation U2 360 Tour has committed to reducing their environmental impact through a comprehensive reduction and offset strategy. As part of this, the Tour will be offsetting their emissions from both the 2009 and 2010 legs. Live Nation invites you to do the same by first and foremost reducing your impact by using public transportation, carpooling ( PickupPal ), biking, or walking to the show. If you would like to make your travel to the show completely carbon neutral purchase an offset from one of the options below. Learn more...

http://offsetoptions.cloudapp.net/u2-360/Offsetting.aspx?lang=en&user=db207972-5aa2-4d26-8e2a-7f5424846a1b

Firstly, where is the lecture, and secondly, if there is one, where is the bit where Bono is quoted?

Looks to me like it says 'Live Nation INVITES you to do the same...'

All it basically says is 'try no to bring your car to the gig'...so what? :confused:

[--------]

Two fat, tedious, hypocritical short-arse blobs.


Tree-huggers.

Haemorrhoids.

Indeed. :agree:

[--------]

The Live Nation U2 360 Tour has committed to reducing their environmental impact through a comprehensive reduction and offset strategy. As part of this, the Tour will be offsetting their emissions from both the 2009 and 2010 legs. Live Nation invites you to do the same by first and foremost reducing your impact by using public transportation, carpooling ( PickupPal ), biking, or walking to the show. If you would like to make your travel to the show completely carbon neutral purchase an offset from one of the options below. Learn more...

http://offsetoptions.cloudapp.net/u2-360/Offsetting.aspx?lang=en&user=db207972-5aa2-4d26-8e2a-7f5424846a1b


:faf:

Candidate for Pseuds' Corner.

Rich environmentalists really are the pits.

[Jack]

Is Bono not the chap that moved out of Eire to avoid paying taxes even though for the likes of him they originally paid a reduced rate?

I would seem that paying your way in your own country would be a decent start before preaching to people in other countries how they should donate money to others.

[--------]

Is Bono not the chap that moved out of Eire to avoid paying taxes even though for the likes of him they originally paid a reduced rate?

I would seem that paying your way in your own country would be a decent start before preaching to people in other countries how they should donate money to others.


Believe so.

Gore touted a film around the US and Europe - targetting schools and selling the film as an 'educational resource' - and got away with it in spite of serious questions about its accuracy and honesty. It was called "An Inconvenient Truth" - which I suppose at least suggests that Glorea had grasped the concept of Orwellian irony - the film wasn't inconvenient, since it was just what the environmental lobby was looking for at the time, and it didn't bear a whole lot of relation to 'truth'.

'Opinion' isn't synonymous with 'truth'.

[hibsdaft]

what i really hate about Bono is that he is a tax dodger. would rather the Dutch got his tax than the state of his own nation. what a total lowlife. particularly when he campaigns for nations to spend more money on helping Africa (not got a problem with that idea) which is paid for by... tax!

[Steve-O]

Er, I am fairly sure both U2 and Bono are still based in Dublin, Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono

According to this, he lives in Ireland...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ - according to this, they have shifted to the Netherlands but I can't find any other evidence of this.

Even if true, hardly the first rock stars / rich people to move their money to tax havens are they?

[Leicester Fan]

Gore, I don't know much about. Humiliated as an ex-pres of America

An ex vice pres of America.

[--------]

Er, I am fairly sure both U2 and Bono are still based in Dublin, Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono

According to this, he lives in Ireland...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ - according to this, they have shifted to the Netherlands but I can't find any other evidence of this.

Even if true, hardly the first rock stars / rich people to move their money to tax havens are they?

I think what irritates those who're irritated by him is that while he can live where he likes and pay taxes where he likes, he then goes on to preach at other people about the decisions THEY should be making about how they live.

Like i say, if you wanna be a tree-hugger, feel free - hug a tree. But don't ask me to join you, especially when you've made your millions out of the existing tree-hostile system, and only NOW, when all those millions are safely in the bank, do you see the light and start telling me how nasty I'm being to trees.

"I talk to the trees, that's why they put me away...." (Spike Milligna, the well-known typing error.)

[Twa Cairpets]

Bono is a singer with a predeliction for wearing sunglasses.

Neither of these things make it wrong for him to hold political or environmental views, but neither does it confer on him any authority in these fields. Because his primary career gives him the opportunity to have a platform for his views, you cant blame the guy for using it - it doesnt make it right, or mean that because you like the music you have to like or agree with his stance. It has the same standing as the views of Paris Hilton or Katie Price.

The sad thing is that lots of people take this as being a confirmation of the validity.

[PeeJay]

Believe so.

Gore touted a film around the US and Europe - targetting schools and selling the film as an 'educational resource' - and got away with it in spite of serious questions about its accuracy and honesty. It was called "An Inconvenient Truth" - which I suppose at least suggests that Glorea had grasped the concept of Orwellian irony - the film wasn't inconvenient, since it was just what the environmental lobby was looking for at the time, and it didn't bear a whole lot of relation to 'truth'.

'Opinion' isn't synonymous with 'truth'.

There is of course a huge "truth" being touted by states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India saying global warming, environmental pollution and so on are not actually happening as the "environmental lobby" suggests. The recent debacle that was the Copenhagen Conference saw just how strong this lobbying power is in the hands of these states, as they managed to torpedo any sensible measures being proposed. They can of course - and they do - come up with a "truth" regarding global warming/environmental issues. A reasoned mind might wonder why these states, or oil companies or suchlike are claiming that global warming/environmental pollution etc is not man made. They claim that it is all a lie put forward by "tree huggers" and similar. It seems to me when reading posts on sites like this that the message being put across by Saudi Arabia (oil), India & China (industrialisation) and Russia (Siberia as future agricultural paradise) or petrochemical companies (various countries) and - dare I mention it Daily Mail/Telegraph readers - is obviously reaching people. Why this is so is fully beyond me. Naturally "they" can find "scientits" who will back up their views! I personally do not understand people claiming that global warming is not happening or the environment is not at danger and we (humandkind) are not responsible. Particularly when I am fully aware that disinformation is being financed to the tune of millions by companies, countries and individuals with vested interests in maintaining a status quo and/or who do not care about current or future generations.

As to Bono, I believe that raising awareness about environmental issues is a vital matter in this day and age, and if Bono, Gore and the many others use their platforms to do so that's fine by me.

[Leicester Fan]

There is of course a huge "truth" being touted by states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India saying global warming, environmental pollution and so on are not actually happening as the "environmental lobby" suggests. The recent debacle that was the Copenhagen Conference saw just how strong this lobbying power is in the hands of these states, as they managed to torpedo any sensible measures being proposed. They can of course - and they do - come up with a "truth" regarding global warming/environmental issues. A reasoned mind might wonder why these states, or oil companies or suchlike are claiming that global warming/environmental pollution etc is not man made. They claim that it is all a lie put forward by "tree huggers" and similar. It seems to me when reading posts on sites like this that the message being put across by Saudi Arabia (oil), India & China (industrialisation) and Russia (Siberia as future agricultural paradise) or petrochemical companies (various countries) and - dare I mention it Daily Mail/Telegraph readers - is obviously reaching people. Why this is so is fully beyond me. Naturally "they" can find "scientits" who will back up their views! I personally do not understand people claiming that global warming is not happening or the environment is not at danger and we (humandkind) are not responsible. Particularly when I am fully aware that disinformation is being financed to the tune of millions by companies, countries and individuals with vested interests in maintaining a status quo and/or who do not care about current or future generations.

As to Bono, I believe that raising awareness about environmental issues is a vital matter in this day and age, and if Bono, Gore and the many others use their platforms to do so that's fine by me.

The warmergate affair has proven that the global warming 'scientits' are quite capable of manipulating figures to suit their argument. If the truth was so cast iron certain as you suggest then why would this be necessary?

As for the oil producing countries saying that it doesn't exist, they may have a vested interest but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

[Jack]

There is of course a huge "truth" being touted by states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India saying global warming, environmental pollution and so on are not actually happening as the "environmental lobby" suggests. The recent debacle that was the Copenhagen Conference saw just how strong this lobbying power is in the hands of these states, as they managed to torpedo any sensible measures being proposed. They can of course - and they do - come up with a "truth" regarding global warming/environmental issues. A reasoned mind might wonder why these states, or oil companies or suchlike are claiming that global warming/environmental pollution etc is not man made. They claim that it is all a lie put forward by "tree huggers" and similar. It seems to me when reading posts on sites like this that the message being put across by Saudi Arabia (oil), India & China (industrialisation) and Russia (Siberia as future agricultural paradise) or petrochemical companies (various countries) and - dare I mention it Daily Mail/Telegraph readers - is obviously reaching people. Why this is so is fully beyond me. Naturally "they" can find "scientits" who will back up their views! I personally do not understand people claiming that global warming is not happening or the environment is not at danger and we (humandkind) are not responsible. Particularly when I am fully aware that disinformation is being financed to the tune of millions by companies, countries and individuals with vested interests in maintaining a status quo and/or who do not care about current or future generations.

As to Bono, I believe that raising awareness about environmental issues is a vital matter in this day and age, and if Bono, Gore and the many others use their platforms to do so that's fine by me.

A typical reaction from the global warming lobby; is all mankind’s fault – believe us or your wrong and all these nasty people are against us so we must be right.

Both sides have out lied each other to the extent any reasoned debate on the subject descends to a ‘you tell bigger lies than us’ debate and only looking at the other sides story to pick holes in it.

… and all the while the government see it as a good opportunity to tax us on something else. :grr:

[PeeJay]

A typical reaction from the global warming lobby; is all mankind’s fault – believe us or your wrong and all these nasty people are against us so we must be right.

Both sides have out lied each other to the extent any reasoned debate on the subject descends to a ‘you tell bigger lies than us’ debate and only looking at the other sides story to pick holes in it.

… and all the while the government see it as a good opportunity to tax us on something else. :grr:


It's not just global warming, nor is it THE GOVERNMENT (as in any one single government) of course. Anyway, I wouldn't profess to say that no-one on the 'environmental lobby' has ever lied, but the evidence for seems plain for all to see and - importantly - for the correct moral reasons - the evidence against seems far, far less so and based solely on the vested interests of my aforementioned countries, petrochemical companies, right-wing loonies, GWB and his cronies et al, none of which helps their case (sic). Future generations will look back and wonder why so many stuck their heads in the sand ... IMO.:thumbsup:

[PeeJay]

The warmergate affair has proven that the global warming 'scientits' are quite capable of manipulating figures to suit their argument. If the truth was so cast iron certain as you suggest then why would this be necessary?

As for the oil producing countries saying that it doesn't exist, they may have a vested interest but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

You say it doesn't mean they are wrong, but the point is they have no interest at all in declaring it to actually exist, as doing so would harm their own particular status. Take Russia, it is looking forward to Siberia warming up and becoming an 'agricultural paradise' - what do they care about the rest of the world? It's not just about global warming, it's about the entire ecological package and raising awareness of all thats associated with humankind's misuse of the planet and its resources, surely? To say it's nothing to do with us is truly astonishing. Hearts claim to be CL material pales into insigificance when measured against it.
:greengrin
What the hell - let future generations worry!

[(((Fergus)))]

The pro-global warming countries also have their vested interest. While the eastern/african countries have a) natural resources and b) manpower that are diminishing in the west, we on the other hand have the technological edge. If the rest of the world is content with the old technologies they have, they have no reason to buy anything from us. Just like Microsoft, we have to keep getting them to buy the upgrades.

[--------]

There is of course a huge "truth" being touted by states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and India saying global warming, environmental pollution and so on are not actually happening as the "environmental lobby" suggests. The recent debacle that was the Copenhagen Conference saw just how strong this lobbying power is in the hands of these states, as they managed to torpedo any sensible measures being proposed. They can of course - and they do - come up with a "truth" regarding global warming/environmental issues. A reasoned mind might wonder why these states, or oil companies or suchlike are claiming that global warming/environmental pollution etc is not man made. They claim that it is all a lie put forward by "tree huggers" and similar. It seems to me when reading posts on sites like this that the message being put across by Saudi Arabia (oil), India & China (industrialisation) and Russia (Siberia as future agricultural paradise) or petrochemical companies (various countries) and - dare I mention it Daily Mail/Telegraph readers - is obviously reaching people. Why this is so is fully beyond me. Naturally "they" can find "scientits" who will back up their views! I personally do not understand people claiming that global warming is not happening or the environment is not at danger and we (humandkind) are not responsible. Particularly when I am fully aware that disinformation is being financed to the tune of millions by companies, countries and individuals with vested interests in maintaining a status quo and/or who do not care about current or future generations.

As to Bono, I believe that raising awareness about environmental issues is a vital matter in this day and age, and if Bono, Gore and the many others use their platforms to do so that's fine by me.


I fully appreciate that there's an argument for husbanding resources and monitoring alleged climatic change. That's common sense.

However, it's more than clear to me that ALL scientific research in this present age is to a greater or lesser extent funded by industry of one kind or another. And that a whole lot of people now have lucrative careers as environmental experts thanks to the green lobby - craeers which in many cases pay far more than any other career open to them.

Gore KNOWINGLY distributed a film containing falsehoods - easily detectable falsehoods - to schools in the US and UK, touting his own particular beliefs in regard to a subject on which there are many conflicting beliefs. He used his clout as a failed Veep and Presidential candidate to do so, and his pals in government and all the wee green eco-warrior pressure groups shouted loud and got the rubbish shown. If the story is as you seem to say it is, then it stands as truth and doesn't need a retired American politician and business millionaire telling lies to support it.

(Question - when does a US politico see the light about the environment? AFTER he's made his fortune investing in oil, cars, armaments and airlines.)

But what really gets up my nose is that right or wrong, truth or falsehood, tree-huggers and Prius-drivers do 'hypocritical-pretentious-unctuous-and-glutinous-holier-than-thou' so much better than anyone else on the planet bar the American TV evangelists they are coming to so closely resemble.

That is all. :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

I fully appreciate that there's an argument for husbanding resources and monitoring alleged climatic change. That's common sense.

However, it's more than clear to me that ALL scientific research in this present age is to a greater or lesser extent funded by industry of one kind or another. And that a whole lot of people now have lucrative careers as environmental experts thanks to the green lobby - craeers which in many cases pay far more than any other career open to them.

Gore KNOWINGLY distributed a film containing falsehoods - easily detectable falsehoods - to schools in the US and UK, touting his own particular beliefs in regard to a subject on which there are many conflicting beliefs. He used his clout as a failed Veep and Presidential candidate to do so, and his pals in government and all the wee green eco-warrior pressure groups shouted loud and got the rubbish shown. If the story is as you seem to say it is, then it stands as truth and doesn't need a retired American politician and business millionaire telling lies to support it.

(Question - when does a US politico see the light about the environment? AFTER he's made his fortune investing in oil, cars, armaments and airlines.)

But what really gets up my nose is that right or wrong, truth or falsehood, tree-huggers and Prius-drivers do 'hypocritical-pretentious-unctuous-and-glutinous-holier-than-thou' so much better than anyone else on the planet bar the American TV evangelists they are coming to so closely resemble.

That is all. :devil:

The problem here - as evidenced on the latter part of the thread, is that the facts of the matter get lost beneath the hyperbole and the personalities.

If it can be accepted that the planet is warming - which it quite clearly is as evidenced by retreating glaciers, ice bores, even dendrochronology, the question comes down to what extent, if any, this warming is caused by human/industrial activity.

Personalities get in the way of the science - there was an excellent programme on BBC4 radio I listened to when driving a few weeks ago about the leaked emails at Copenhagen and the impact they could have. The reporter had gone through each email, and his conclusion - which seemed to me to be valid without having done what he has done - was that the furore was undeserved as the emails almost excusively dealt with office politics and not the validity of the science undertaken by the the University.

From my perspective, the (generally) right-wing political point scoring and head-in-the-sandism of the the "warming-deniers" is akin to the pro-smoking lobby, whilst the environmental side does itself no favours by coming over as exaggerating scaremongers or self righteous lentil eaters.

The fact of the matter is that in this case, if we continue to only monitor on the basis that its not yet conclusively proven to the whole worlds satisfaction, vested interest and all, then if and when it becomes impossible to deny it could be too late to effectively do anything about it.

[--------]

The problem here - as evidenced on the latter part of the thread, is that the facts of the matter get lost beneath the hyperbole and the personalities.

If it can be accepted that the planet is warming - which it quite clearly is as evidenced by retreating glaciers, ice bores, even dendrochronology, the question comes down to what extent, if any, this warming is caused by human/industrial activity.

Personalities get in the way of the science - there was an excellent programme on BBC4 radio I listened to when driving a few weeks ago about the leaked emails at Copenhagen and the impact they could have. The reporter had gone through each email, and his conclusion - which seemed to me to be valid without having done what he has done - was that the furore was undeserved as the emails almost excusively dealt with office politics and not the validity of the science undertaken by the the University.

From my perspective, the (generally) right-wing political point scoring and head-in-the-sandism of the the "warming-deniers" is akin to the pro-smoking lobby, whilst the environmental side does itself no favours by coming over as exaggerating scaremongers or self righteous lentil eaters.

The fact of the matter is that in this case, if we continue to only monitor on the basis that its not yet conclusively proven to the whole worlds satisfaction, vested interest and all, then if and when it becomes impossible to deny it could be too late to effectively do anything about it.



That would seem to be a rational view, TC, and I'd go with it.

Common sense says to me that we should have been taking steps to diversify into alternative energy sources, cleaning up industrial waste-disposal at all levels, initiating third-world land-reclamation projects, developing third-world industrial production.....

But it would be as naive to forget that there are folks looking to make a big financial killing out of environmentalism, as it is to forget just how hypocritical it must seem to the Chinese or the Indians when the US and UK and Japan get up on their hind legs to preach the evils of western-type industrialism - we've made our killing out of the process; now we're telling them they can't do the same?

[PeeJay]

... as it is to forget just how hypocritical it must seem to the Chinese or the Indians when the US and UK and Japan get up on their hind legs to preach the evils of western-type industrialism - we've made our killing out of the process; now we're telling them they can't do the same?

So much for rational views - it's not about us and them - we're all in this together, surely? We're supposed to learn from our mistakes aren't we?:cool2:

[--------]

So much for rational views - it's not about us and them - we're all in this together, surely? We're supposed to learn from our mistakes aren't we?:cool2:


Aye - but I can understand why the Chinese and Indians are sceptical about the motives of the US and UK. WE've enjoyed all the benefits of industrial development and expansion for the last 250 years. Now we suddenly start getting anxious about the planet when THEY're about to move into a period of growth and possible dominance.

Just as WE've cleared all our own forests, and only now when the developing countries (in other words, THEM) are beginning to do what we did centuries ago do we discover that cutting down trees regardless is a bad thing.

If I were Chinese I think I would be a LITTLE sceptical about what's behind western governments' sudden conversion to eco-responsibility....


And how many of us in the 'first world' are REALLY prepared for the radical changes in OUR lifestyle that some people are demanding?

BTW - it's not about 'saving the planet' at all. It's about preserving an environment in which human beings can continue to live in a manner not too dissimilar to the way we live now.

The planet won't disappear. Human beings might.

Sometimes I think that might not be altogether a bad thing for the rest of the inhabitants of the planet.....