That sucks. :( I really liked the (RED) campaign, and thought it was a cool way to market gadgets that people wanted anyway and support a charity at the same time.
Maybe now's not the right time to judge the idea, and let it roll for a while longer to see if the costs eventually recoup. It's a shame though, I really dug the idea.
As an addendum, I'd advise anyone interested in global climate change or a healthier environment, regardless of their political affiliations, to read a blog that was set up a few years ago by actual climatologists conducting research into global climate change:
http://realclimate.org/
It's an excellent website, full of actual data and interesting information.
I'm entertained at everyone taking snipes at Al, but completely ignoring the bit about Dick Cheney, which the taxpayers are paying for, where Al is paying for his energy usage himself and offsetting it by decreasing his carbon footprint and using renewable energy sources, as other posters have said. There are the cold hard facts, laid out in black and white. Interesting which of those facts people choose to ignore.
Like the second comic says, it's a tempest in a teapot. Every major scientific publication and climatologist refers to global climate change as a reality and something that's happening right now. It's only "scientists" and pseudoscientists like the folks behind "junkscience" and those being paid elaborately by energy interests who are claiming there's a "debate." There's critical analysis and peer review, of course, it's necessary for scientific review and publication, it's necessary for the scientific process, but the "other side of the debate" is interested less in science and more in politics. A court of law? Since when does science need to convince politicians and lawmakers that what they say is true in order for it to be true? That enough should be all the warning flags we need.
It amuses me how easily people choose to stick their heads and in the sand and their fingers in their ears, call others "chicken little," and then go on fighting against (heaven forbid) common sense practices like energy conservation, clean air and water, and a richer natural environment, all because they don't care for the politicians who are involved, not because they dispute the facts.
Maybe now's not the right time to judge the idea, and let it roll for a while longer to see if the costs eventually recoup. It's a shame though, I really dug the idea.
http://realclimate.org/
It's an excellent website, full of actual data and interesting information.
Like the second comic says, it's a tempest in a teapot. Every major scientific publication and climatologist refers to global climate change as a reality and something that's happening right now. It's only "scientists" and pseudoscientists like the folks behind "junkscience" and those being paid elaborately by energy interests who are claiming there's a "debate." There's critical analysis and peer review, of course, it's necessary for scientific review and publication, it's necessary for the scientific process, but the "other side of the debate" is interested less in science and more in politics. A court of law? Since when does science need to convince politicians and lawmakers that what they say is true in order for it to be true? That enough should be all the warning flags we need.
It amuses me how easily people choose to stick their heads and in the sand and their fingers in their ears, call others "chicken little," and then go on fighting against (heaven forbid) common sense practices like energy conservation, clean air and water, and a richer natural environment, all because they don't care for the politicians who are involved, not because they dispute the facts.