Thoughts on the "Green" aspects of this game

Submitted by bouje on December 19th, 2009 at 12:05 PM

The game is just getting underway and I'm already sick of this Green BS. Give me a break "There is only one star to watch today and that is MOTHER EARTH".

Anyone else hating this already?



December 19th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

Has anyone seen Jesse Ventura's new Conspiracy Theory show? I caught it this week and it was about the myth of global warming and how introducing the idea of Going Green is nothing more than a means to make money. I know, I know it's Jesse Ventura, but the show touched on some interesting things.


December 19th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^

It should be alarming when you realize how little impact so much of our "green" efforts actually have. If the cost were minimal, and there weren't draconian regulations and restrictions, I'd be all for it. But the cost to global economies when weighed against the actual impact on the environment is disappointing.

The bottom line is that we have no idea how much affect we have on climate change, and if global warming is even occurring. If you look at the global politics behind these initiatives, it is simply global wealth redistribution. Industrialized, rich, Western nations are supposed to make radical cuts on emissions at the expense of their ability to produce good at a competitive rate. Meanwhile, third world and emerging nations can ignore environmental concerns as they industrialize and produce goods at a much cheaper cost. It's punish the wealthy and established to give the poor and industrializing a chance to catch up. After all, as a western european descendent, I'm from the only people group in the world that has ever been imperialistic or used other people groups for my gain. If this were really about saving the planet, all nations would be held to the same standards, and they are not.

There are better ways to make significant changes that can help our environment and make good business sense. Then we can spend the extra money (if we choose) on more pressing issues like starving children, epidemics in countries, education, etc.

Right now, I'd go for recycling the Michigan football and basketball programs.


December 19th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^

I like this show, especially its non-partisan nature. One week he takes on the 9-11 conspiracy, usually espoused by the left. The next week it's the global warming hoax conspiracy, which is usually espoused by the right. At least he can't be accused of "taking sides" or having any covert agenda other than to produce an entertaining, money-making product.

As for the green aspect of the game, I really liked the KU gym with the treadmills hooked into generators. I want a generator hooked up to an exercise bike for my house.


December 19th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^

You're upset that they're trying to bring awareness to what may be the most important issue facing our planet? Personally I think it's awesome that we're taking part in this and they're highlighting the environmentally conscious efforts and innovations undertaken by our school


December 19th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^

But I wouldn't say it's one of the most important issues facing our planet. There has been no proof that global warming exists but studies are showing the contrary. I would think that we should be focusing on things like Iran and their need for nukes. This is an actual issue that could harm our planet. I am all for keeping the U.S. a clean place with clean air to breathe but to what expense? I am sure I will get negged for having a different opinion on this but I get tired of seeing Al Gore making millions and millions on a scare tactic. It's the Big Bang "Theory" they have spent so much time and money on it now that they can't turn back and say "my bad, we were wrong." So, instead, they will force change upon us and hurt business even further in this country just to save face and say "see we fixed the weather." Anyway, I wouldn't mind having a little more "Green" in my pocket this time of year!

restive neb

December 19th, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^

I generally try to keep an open mind to opposing ideas, but it seems that most people are only looking for sources of information that support their already steadfast views, hence the success of MSNBC and Fox News. Case in point:

"There has been no proof that global warming exists but studies are showing the contrary."

Really? Your argument is that, while many (if not most) climatologists support the idea of global warming, the only evidence is to the contrary? There is "no proof" on one side, but studies "showing the contrary" on the other? So your opponents must unequivocally prove their point of view, but your side only needs some studies that could support the contrary? There is lots of evidence that global warming is happening. There is also lots of evidence that the warming could be caused by man. Is the connection proven at this point? I don't believe so. Is it possible or even likely? Apparently scientists all over the world threw out their usual requirement of "facts" and "evidence" and the "scientific method" and just jumped on the bandwagon.

There is a case to be made that the warming that is being shown is part of a natural cycle. There is no way that you can completely disregard the evidence of the other side, though. While you can't prove a negative, it doesn't allow your side to simply throw out the evidence that DOES exist for the opposition.


December 19th, 2009 at 2:30 PM ^

What bothered me the most was the whole "All of us in sports-folk aren't as smart as you scientists, so could you dumb it down a bit so we can understand?" question. really aggravated me.


December 19th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

Sorry, but I have a pretty strong opinion on this one, and my opinion is that if you still honestly think that climate change is some sort of conspiracy theory you are horribly misinformed.

The fact that we are hurting our environment is scientific fact, and the ONLY thing up for debate is how severe the damage is.

Can you honestly tell me that the things we have been pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution have had no effect? That currently having around 250,000,000 cars in the United States releasing emissions on a daily basis has had no effect?

I think anyone who takes the time to do their research will find out that there is really no debate in this area. And if you want to talk about making money, it is the companies who are invested in the current energy system who are making the most money and therefore have the most to lose if we make a change.

So in short, no I do not have a problem with today's events. It should be at the center of everyone's consciousness, and I'm very happy that ESPN has jumped on board.

restive neb

December 19th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^

I found the coverage during the basketball game to be quite annoying. I tuned in for a basketball game, not for an environmental sermon. On top of that, most basketball announcers have a hard enough time not sounding like idiots when just covering the sport. When they try to branch out into other topics, they are almost guaranteed to fail.


December 19th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^

My question is, "Can you honestly tell me that the things we have been pumping into the atmosphere have had a significant effect?"

My issue is that my understanding of the issue is that most of the arguments about global warming are derived from some basic research that has been called into question.

Not only has the research been called into question, it has been called into question by the *real* scientific method. Not by saying "isn't it *OBVIOUS*?" but rather by scientists who have spent a significant part of their life's work investigating the issue.

Those scientists were then ostracized and silenced for their dissention.

If the global warming science were so sound, why wouldn't the supporters be open to scrutiny and debate?

Just because a lot of people said something, doesn't mean it is true. Without questioning and challenging dogma, we'd still believe the earth was flat.

The thing that drives me the most crazy is that people who claim to be "tak[ing] the time to do the research" actually HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH and are piling on what "must" be true.

The ESPN broadcast today spent time talking about Biodiesel and all the benefits. The biodiesel and ethanol scientists that have been duped by the ConAgra's of the world are espousing junk science rather than understanding the true impact of the so-called "green" technology they support.

And don't start your posts with "Sorry" when you're clearly not.


December 19th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^

is a scam. There are two types of people who go for it.

1) People who actually want to make a difference. I applaud the efforts. Unfortunately, if you think taxing businesses and consumers to "green" up the place, you've bought the whole scam hook, line, and sinker. Go recycle some cans, unplug your toaster and feel better about yourself.

2) People who know what the deal is and are aiming to "punish" the advanced nations of the world. It's all about the money--just like nearly every issue. It's going to cost everyone a bunch of $$ and it's going to do jack in the end.

If humans had control over the climate (and by control I mean more carbon dioxide=warmer climate), then logic would tell you that the Earth would be getting warmer each and every year. Its not. In fact, it was hotter about 1000 years ago. How can that be? There were no awful automobiles or factories then...strange.


December 19th, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^

This is the fact, which is why I don't know why they call it global warming. Shouldn't it be global cooling? It is a proven fact that the Earth is not getting warmer over time but it is cooling down. Mabye our sun is just burning out and that skews our temperature data which keeps us from proving that the climates are changing! Hmmm...That could be a new book and theory; I'll get back to ya...

restive neb

December 19th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^

The argument is about the current direction of the trend, which depends on time frame, and the cause of the current trend.

I suppose if you want to start some silly new theory, I have one for you: Right now, it's 30 deg F where I live. The forecast is calling for the temperature to drop all the way down to 22 deg F by 4 am. This is clearly a cooling trend, especially when compared to the annual average temperature! I think we have something really scary going on here! Oh wait, never mind. It's just a normal December.


December 19th, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^

People from both sides of the argument tend to pull "facts" or "stats" from sources defending their point of view. I think, from the example you gave, that you may be looking at it in a pretty micro view. I was simply agreeing with what ldoublee posted. The "Average" temp has not risen over the last century or millennium but it has actually gone down. Take what you want from that but I think it says a lot. This is something that people definetly need to agree to disagree on and theres nothing wrong with that. I would never be so naive to think that I could make everyone believe the way I do. Groupthink is mostly a terrible thing and an opinion is not something that should be over looked. I would never "neg" a person over their beliefs or opinions unless they are purposely trying to step on someone elses. If you look at the history of the World, according to scientists, it tends to go in cycles. The world was hot and dinos ruled the Earth, it became cold and an ice age hit, the world warmed up again and we live here. If the world is continuing on its normal pattern then, as the numbers show, the world will slowly become cold again as it did before. This is not what everyone believes and I am not saying that I do. This is just looking at things from one of the many POV. I will leave it at that as I would hate for this thread to become some political thing and have the mods yank it. So happy holidays to you and yours, stay warm!

restive neb

December 19th, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^

The average temperature has not "actually gone down" over the last century, despite your claim above. The trend is quite clearly in the opposite direction. The scary inaccuracies in some people's "facts" are what bother me the most.

Edit: From the example above I may be looking at a micro view? It was a joke, not an actual perspective. I hope that was obvious.


December 19th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

Nice Wiki chart, yes yes, it is. I advise some real research from one of the climatologists that you were speaking of. Here is a sample from the NOAA a real source.

Wow, I advise you get over yourself I got the joke, it wasn't that elaborate. As I said in my last comment please understand the fact that your POV is not the only one and know that it is ok to delightfully disagree with someone. While I completely disagree with your stance I do not feel the need to try and degrade a persons thoughts or opinions. If you ever want to actually influence people or win them over I would recommend a class in motivational psychology for starters.

restive neb

December 19th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^

Wow, someone is a bit defensive. Understandable since you're wrong. You (and that website) are picking out one data point (July of this year) and comparing it to a century long average, and concluding that the one point indicates a trend. I will concede that your data is correct without checking, but that doesn't disprove the actual overall trend of warming. Want another source?

How about the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center, which is part of the US Chamber of Commerce)?

It confirms that the temperature over the last century is rising. You can attack the messenger all you want, but the simple fact is that your "facts" don't measure up. I am willing to concede that there isn't enough proof (evidence, yes; proof, no) that the warming is man-made. I am not willing to concede that the trend doesn't exist. I will respectfully argue about the first point, because it can be reasonably argued. I will not respectfully argue against the second point (that it is cooling over the last century), because it is a complete misrepresentation of facts.


December 19th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^

I have to be honest with you here:

When people use temperature trends as proof that Global Warming is not true or just a normal cycle, all they do is show that they are completely ignorant about what the real issue is.

The real issue is not about whether the temperature is going up or down. It is human-induced CLIMATE CHANGE and DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT. If we are doing something to alter the normal weather patterns on Earth then that is probably not good. In addition, if we get to a point where all of our rivers, lakes, oceans, etc are polluted that is not good. Okay so maybe the weather was hotter 20 million years ago. But I doubt there was rivers that were so polluted that you would not swim in them in a million years. I doubt there was an entire region in Alaska where animals were unexpectedly covered in oil and the ecosystem destroyed.

The GREEN initiative is much more than just reducing CO2 emissions, so you may want to edit your post.

Obviously, neither side is going to be able to convince the other here. But if doing things like recycling, not using excessive amounts of electricity, and making more fuel-efficient vehicles bothers you that much then do whatever you want.

I just think these things don't really hurt anyone, and if this "scam" turns out to have some truth to it then maybe we could help things out a bit.


December 20th, 2009 at 12:08 AM ^

But the issue is choices.

There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal this week that looked at how much would be spent on global warming that could be better directed elsewhere.

Of course it is easy to recyle instead of throw away. Of course it is better to turn off a light when you leave the room.

But is it better to spend trillions on initiatives to maybe save a few or spend a few billion on fighting malaria and save tens of thousands?

The following is from this article:…

"Take malaria. Most estimates suggest that if nothing is done, 3% more of the Earth's population will be at risk of infection by 2100. The most efficient global carbon cuts designed to keep average global temperatures from rising any higher than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (a plan proposed by the industrialized G-8 nations) would cost the world $40 trillion a year in lost economic growth by 2100—and have only a marginal impact on reducing the at-risk malaria population. By contrast, we could spend $3 billion a year on mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays, and subsidies for new therapies—and within 10 years cut the number of malaria infections by half. In other words, for the money it would take to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives. "

Huntington Wolverine

December 19th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^

1. If global warming is true and we do nothing- we're screwed
2. If global warming is true and we do something to fix it- YAY!!!
3. If global warming if false and we nothing- we're screwed because we still can't swim in Lake Erie and there's this thing called Acid Rain...
4. If global warming is false and we do something to address pollution- YAY!!! You can swim in Lake Erie and eat the fish more than once a year...

Pascal's wager says do something about the pollution even if the globe isn't warming up. It's a win-win


December 19th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^

Some people will refuse to believe facts no matter how clear and obvious they are. The truth of the matter is that the Earth will be just fine. Even if we continue to totally screw up the environment, in the long run, the Earth will be alright. The real issue at hand is how we will survive with a diminishing ozone layer, exponentially rising pollution rates, and dwindling water supplies. You can hate on climatologists all you want, but your lifestyle will eventually change.


December 20th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^

A lot of this issue seems to be about control. If enough laws are passed that are intended to curb global warming in the end we have less freedom (I am not saying we should have the freedom to pollute, but we have less freedom as consumers to buy the products we desire). Congress has already passed a law stating that the standard Incandescent light bulb must be phased out. California wants to ban big screen TVs and SUVs and on and on. What it comes down to is less choice and freedom to consumers which in the end drives prices up. Personally I dont want a politician telling me they know whats best for me. Only I know whether or not I need a 64 inch plasma TV.

There have also been numerous studies that show that the E85 gasoline is not any better than regular gas because cars get worse gas milage on E85. That hybrid cars, such as the Prius, are worse for the environment because the process to develop the batteries from nickel devastates the environment. And the move to electric powered cars is stupid in and of itself because when you plug in the car to charge it at night you are using power most likely coming from a coal powered plant which pollutes and wipes out any difference you feel you are making.

As for the money the pro global warming scientists are making lots of money by doing this research. They are hired by firms to prove that global warming is occurring. It is their job, they are employed to find that global warming is occurring. Conversely there are scientist who are hired to do the opposite but it is naive to think that those pushing global warming are not making big bucks pushing this issue. Carbon offsets anybody *cough* *cough*


December 19th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^

the scientists said we would be entering new ice age. Now the earth is heating up. Conservation is great, but taxing consumers based on carbon usage is dangerous to the world economy. What good is saving the earth, if everyone is in the poor house. Jesse's show is a little too over the top for me, but the show does bring up some very interesting things. Like Woodward said, "follow the money."