# Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/



> OSLO, Norway - Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday, and the former vice president used the attention to warn that global warming is "the greatest challenge we've ever faced."
> 
> World leaders, President Bush among them, congratulated the winners, while skeptics of man's contribution to warming criticized the choice of Gore.
> 
> Gore in a statement said he was " deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."


 
Thoughts?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 12, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


 
I thought the movie was a good job, and he has been doing a lot in regards to raising awareness about Climate change, sticking to his guns during a time when most scientests were naysayers (as opposed to now where scientests fundamentally agree that Global Warming is real, even if they cannot agree on the source). 

So, good for him; I don't see why not.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

A true leader being recognized for leadership. I think it is a rare event.


----------



## sirdarksol (Oct 12, 2007)

I say good.
This is something that needs to be paid attention to, no matter if humans have anything to do with it or not, because it is going to impact us, and it is going to impact the world, and even if we can't make any changes to it (I don't believe that, but I'm trying to stay neutral here), we need to know just how large that impact is going to be.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 12, 2007)

sirdarksol said:


> I say good.
> This is something that needs to be paid attention to, no matter if humans have anything to do with it or not, because it is going to impact us, and it is going to impact the world, and even if we can't make any changes to it (I don't believe that, but I'm trying to stay neutral here), we need to know just how large that impact is going to be.



I think this is a very important point. I've heard many Gore's detractors argue that global climate change is a natural occurrence, and therefore is a non-issue. I think Gore has probably contributed more after the White House than many.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 12, 2007)

I don't think his work deserves a prize for promoting "peace."  Sure, global warming if it happens and if its impacts are as bad as is being estimated, it will probably provide the impetuous for war/migration between countries.  Why not award the peace prize to someone who came up with a cheap form of widely available birth control, that will solve alot of the future's problems as easily and far more predictably.  

Lamont


----------



## tellner (Oct 12, 2007)

Good on him. It's not like he's doing it for the money. He's doing something good that he won't profit from because it's the right thing to do for generations (we optimistically hope) as yet unborn. It's quite an accomplishment.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2007)

tellner said:


> Good on him. It's not like he's doing it for the money. He's doing something good that he won't profit from because it's the right thing to do for generations (we optimistically hope) as yet unborn. It's quite an accomplishment.


Well, except he will profit from it, he buys carbon offsets FROM HIMSELF. 
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657


----------



## Dave Leverich (Oct 13, 2007)

Great article Don, I wondered about that when I first read the original post.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Well, except he will profit from it, he buys carbon offsets FROM HIMSELF.
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657


 
Wow... that's.. um... interesting.

Bush's ranch by the way is pretty awesome. Systems like the ranch, and the hurst building to provide another example, are great examples of eco-friendly sub-enviornments. If you have the capital to do such a thing, those are great examples to follow.

As to Al Gore; I wouldn't think that his personal behavior should impact his recognition from his work on raising awareness of climate change. His work has been substantial and of good quality, so I see no reason why he shouldn't be recognized for it.

His personal behavor, however, is another story. I think that many people may have had good reasons to not trust him enough to vote for him in 2000.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2007)

Also, as to who is the hypocrite here:

I am not really a Bush or Gore basher or anything, but...

Which is more hypocritical? Bush has an eco-friendly home but has a history of implementing extremely poor environmental policy. Gores personal behavior seems to be very unfriendly to the environment, but has been a champion in regards to raising environmental awareness.

So who's worse? :idunno:

I think either case is kind of "F"ed.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 13, 2007)

I'm all for giving him an award, but this is not the right one.  And it should not be half given to him and half to a organization.

My understanding was the Nobel Peace prize was meant to go to a individual (not a organization) for work towards bringing peace.  Things like getting treaties, getting missiles dissarmed, reducing standing armies... things that have to do with bringing peace.  Climate change is important, but it's the wrong award IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

I believe it has already been publically announced by the Gore camp that all award money will be given to the Palo Alto based *Alliance for Climate Protection*.



			
				Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore said:
			
		

> I want to use the honor and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness of the emergency.
> 
> Awareness is at an all-time high. ... What's been missing is the sense of urgency. We're going to make sure people understand this is an urgent problem, and No. 2, we're going to go out there and say this is a solvable problem.


 
That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh? 


And, Andrew Green, often in the past, the Peace Prize has been awarded to organizations. Two years ago, for instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from the United Nations received the award. And, as far back as 1904 (the fourth year of Nobel recognition, the Peace Prize was granted to the Institute of International Law. 

Others can be found here: 

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh?


 
Is it libel if it is true? 

I have heard what the linked news story has said regarding Gore's personal energy expendature on more than o0ne occasion.

I can't say with 100% certainty that it is true, but is there any info to counter these statements? :idunno:


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2007)

Gore won?  I demand a recount.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That fact, however, will not stop some people libeling him, though, eh?
> And, Andrew Green, often in the past, the Peace Prize has been awarded to organizations. Two years ago, for instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from the United Nations received the award. And, as far back as 1904 (the fourth year of Nobel recognition, the Peace Prize was granted to the Institute of International Law.
> 
> Others can be found here:
> ...


The fact that his movie depicted things totally unrelated to Global Warming as being caused by global warming is libel? Hardly.
The IAEA and Institute of International Law's winning was more appropriate as NUCLEAR WEAPONS are fairly horrific and a factor in both war and peace... Both fit with original intent, which apparently means nothing.
From Wikipedia: *According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace
 congresses". *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize
How does lying about global warming do that?
A British judge recently ruled that Schools must warn of the BIAS in the film. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Is it libel if it is true?


 
The truth is never libel.

It is, however, completely disengenuous to ascribe global warming to the actions of any one individual. 

Detractors make arguments like: Mr. Gore travelled the world promoting his slide show on airplanes, which have huge carbon footprints. An HONEST evaluation would ask: Is there an alternative mode of transportation that does not have a huge carbon footprint, that Mr. Gore refused to take.

Mr. Gore has a good deal of money. Most people with wealth live in larger more luxiourious homes. To demand that he live in poverty, to truthfully spread the message, is, again, disengenuous.


In another thread, there has been a recent discussion about 'attacking the messenger'. In this case, claims made about Mr. Gore's footprint fit fully into that meme: By attacking the messenger, and discrediting him, detractors are hoping to deflect the message.

And that is a lousy argueing tactic, and in some instances, libel.

EDIT
Some in our country, and some on this message board, just can't miss the opportunity to take a cheap shot at Mr. Gore....

And before some here start telling me to look in the mirror, I'll ask you to look at who posted the first thread when President Bush visited Iraq on Thanksgiving four years ago.
END EDIT


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Mr. Gore has a good deal of money. Most people with wealth live in larger more luxiourious homes. To demand that he live in poverty, to truthfully spread the message, is, again, disengenuous.


Mike, I thought you were a socialist?

I had heard about a house on the Bush ranch in texas.  I don't know if it's true or not, but supposedly very tree-hugging.  Here's a little bit about it from another blog.

"Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small, says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses. Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it, Heymann says. So we bought all this throwaway stone. Its fabulous."


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

A couple of random thoughts ... 

What does my political orientation have to do with the awarding of Nobel Prizes? 

What does Mr. Bush's residence in Texas have to do with the awarding of Nobel prizes? 

A couple of more thoughts. 

When was President Bush's ranch built and compare that to when Mr. Gore's home was built.

What is the carbon footprint required to get Mr. Bush to his ranch?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2007)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Things usually don't fall into either of the 2 extremes that either "side" presents. Apoligize in advance for using terms like "left" and "right" here, as I will overgeneralize simply for efficiency. My take:

Bush's house is a great example of an eco-friendly house. I find it interesting that "Bush-haters" don't seem to want to recognize this. "The left" complains that "the right" will use any excuse to jump all over guys like Al Gore to effectively ignore the real issue (climate change and environment) to focus on personal attacks. This may be true, however I am not seeing much different going on from the either side, as I rarely see "the left" give credit to President Bush where it is due when the discussion of how people set the example comes up, but are quick to give excuses as to why Al Gore expends so much energy. If it were the other way around, I wonder what the "left" or "right" would have to say then?

That said, Bush cannot be called a champion for the environment when his political record regarding these issues going all the way back to when he was Gov. in Texas sucks badly. 

Gore and the organizations he works with has done quite a bit to raise environmental awareness, particularly after his vice-presidancy. And if there is an award to be given out for that, he should be able to recieve it for his work, regardless of how he lives at home. One doesn't equal the other.

That said, Gore doesn't get a pass for his energy expendature. Sure, there are some mitigating factors, and it is not as horrible as some would present. However, it is difficult to deny that it could definatily be improved greatly. I hope, as the article stated he would, that he does do more in the future to change his own lifestyle.

And why is this even a discussion?

Hypocracy is the issue here. Is it hypocritical for Gore to put out a movie, travel the world and speak, and accept an award for his work on raising environmental awareness if in his personal life his energy usage is out of control? In this case, as far as the award is concerned, I say no; the award is for work that was done, not how someone chooses to live at home. So to me, they are seperate issues.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

It's kinda sad that a thread about one of the most prestigious recognitions on our planet, on a topic that affects the entire planet, gets brought to a discussion about two homes. 

Again, Mr. Gore, and the team Recognized by the Nobel Committee have behaved as leaders on a topic desperately needing leadership. 

If I was a drinker, I'd be raising a glass to all of them. 

Well Done, Mr. Gore.  Well Done!


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> A couple of random thoughts ...
> 
> What does my political orientation have to do with the awarding of Nobel Prizes?
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do w/the awarding of Nobel prizes. It has everything to do with your comment about the rich deserving living in big houses, flying private planes around telling us poor people that we should ride our bikes to work in January below zero temps (the riding the bike in Iowan winter is a slight exaguration). 

Personally I'm happy for Gore winning the prize for Global warming, like I was for Carter who brought peace to the middle east...

However, the is no peace in the middle east and there is something fundamentally wrong with Gore; recall the televised debate wherein he refused to follow the rules that he helped set, saying "this is more important than rules." The man exhibits prime ego and a messiah complex big enough to be the next best hope for world dictator.

However, I am glad he's been awarded the Nobel prize and I'm glad he's committed to saving the world from global warming. On the other hand, I see no good reason for the natural process of selection to be halted -- it might be time for humans to become extinct and for nature to try something more viable. The dinosaurs didn't destroy their own world like we're apparently doing. Geologically speaking, it wouldn't take that long for the effects of humans upon the earth to be eliminated.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 13, 2007)

Folks, it's just the Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe there was a time in the past when those used to mean something, but back when it got to the point they gave one to Arafat, that was kinda the red flag that at some point between then and now they started GIVIN' em away.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

Ray said:


> It has nothing to do w/the awarding of Nobel prizes. It has everything to do with your comment about the rich deserving living in big houses, flying private planes around telling us poor people that we should ride our bikes to work in January below zero temps (the riding the bike in Iowan winter is a slight exaguration).
> 
> Personally I'm happy for Gore winning the prize for Global warming, like I was for Carter who brought peace to the middle east...
> 
> ...


 
Ray, there is a treaty of peace among Israel and Egypt. Although it has proven costly for Americans. 

And, the apparent sarcasm in your last paragraph, well, I'm just trying to reconcile that with you standing before your creator; 'Geesh, your Almighty, you gave us a nice planet, and we F'd it up. How was your day?'. 

Andrew Green, just wonderin' here, but if they are just handin' them out, do you got yours? 

Cruentus, do any of these comments look, if not like libel, cheap shots?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 13, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Folks, it's just the Nobel Peace Prize.
> 
> Maybe there was a time in the past when those used to mean something, but back when it got to the point they gave one to Arafat, that was kinda the red flag that at some point between then and now they started GIVIN' em away.


 
lol. Good point. THey sort of lost credability when they gave one to Arafat!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Andrew Green, just wonderin' here, but if they are just handin' them out, do you got yours?


 
Well, I'm sure it shouldn't take too long, the check is in the mail.

Unless maybe you're right and they DID mistakenly send it to the wrong Andrew....hmmm....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

So sorry Andy Moynihan ... was typing instead of reading.


----------



## Eternal White Belt (Oct 13, 2007)

Al Gore being given even partial credit is just further proof that the Nobel is less and less relevant.  For me it lost all credibility after being awarded to Jimmy Carter and to Yassir Arafat. :barf:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So sorry Andy Moynihan ... was typing instead of reading.


 

No worries Mike.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 13, 2007)

:shakes head:

You see, there is a reason why I've gone quiet recently and that is that it is actually not possible to have an intelligent and reasonable discussion about anything above the level of the trivial on the internet.

I've read through the above string of posts with increasing disbelief at the manner in which any topic can be twisted to belittle and render irrelevant the core issues that caused the topic to be raised in the first place.

Yes, much of any subject is going to be based on personal opinion but there is no reason not to be pleasant or even handed about things.  It seems every thread I look at these days is polarised into Left and Right (worse still, it's _American_ Left and Right, so I care even less) ...

If anyone has a question about Japanese swordsmanship (or a direct question on anything asking for my opinion) then I'll be glad to get involved but from now on enjoy talking at each other and not listening to a word each other says {click ... static}.

P.S. yes, I am tired and thus prone to over-reaction and snippetyness but I do feel that people in general need to reassess how they are interacting here.  Not so many months ago it was a pleasant place to be; now not so much.


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Oct 13, 2007)

Good for him.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 13, 2007)

Listening to the back and forth on Bush and Gore, I can't help but think that in the age of instant information, anyone can be a hero or a hypocrite. Gore scores points for his commitment to environmental awareness; he loses points for having an energy-gobbling house. Bush has shown no real interest in the issue at policy level that I can tell; his ranch is an environmental Xanadu. 

What's interesting, though, is that often people end up talking about the messenger and not the message.

But I do wish Albert would fix up his house.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 14, 2007)

Ive always taken issue with people that have their own airplanes telling the "little people" like me that I should drive less. Its the hallmark of socialism/communism, the "leaders" live like kings and horde power under the guise of helping the pesants all live "equally".


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ive always taken issue with people that have their own airplanes telling the "little people" like me that I should drive less. Its the hallmark of socialism/communism, the "leaders" live like kings and horde power under the guise of helping the pesants all live "equally".


 
Can't help but wonder who you're talking about? 

Mr. Gore flies commercial whenever possible. Doesn't own an airplane.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 14, 2007)

The Nobel Prize has become more about political statement or forwarding an adgenda than it is about recognizing an individuals accomplishments forwarding "peace".


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2007)

We are each entitled to our opinion. 

The Nobel Peace Prize is, however, quite probably the world's most prominent recognition. Mr. Gore has demonstrated leadership on this topic. And is duly recognized. 

One wonders if some of these broad sweeping statements (condemnations) made about the Nobel Peace Prize this year, were uttered, and believed last year, when the recognition went to a man who created 'micro-loans' for impoverished neighborhoods.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> We are each entitled to our opinion.
> 
> The Nobel Peace Prize is, however, quite probably the world's most prominent recognition. Mr. Gore has demonstrated leadership on this topic. And is duly recognized.
> 
> One wonders if some of these broad sweeping statements (condemnations) made about the Nobel Peace Prize this year, were uttered, and believed last year, when the recognition went to a man who created 'micro-loans' for impoverished neighborhoods.


That guy and his bank had nothing to do with peace either, be honest.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 14, 2007)

Media didnt put that guy in our face every 5 min. to have made it noteworthy either.

I wonder why that is????


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Can't help but wonder who you're talking about?
> 
> Mr. Gore flies commercial whenever possible. Doesn't own an airplane.


Own, no fly on, yes! Just last month he flew into Camarillo CA which, btw, doesn't have a commercial airport... There is film of this. 



He could have flown commercial into LAX or John Wayne... Shoot, he could have gotten off the plane and into a Prius or other hybrid, but, NO, he got into a town car.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 14, 2007)

I was making more of a general statement ( i could have said "a fleet of cars" as easily). I dont really know what Al has. I have heard he isnt so "green" in his lifestyle.

I have read that he buys his own "carbon offsets" from a company he owns.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I have read that he buys his own "carbon offsets" from a company he owns.



"Carbon Offsets" and Carbon Credits and such sounds like we both live by a lake so I pay you not to piss in the lake just so I can.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> "Carbon Offsets" and Carbon Credits and such sounds like we both live by a lake so I pay you not to piss in the lake just so I can.


 
Nice analogy.  It's more like we both piss in the lake, but I pay a company to research methods on piss cleaning so that I can piss 4 times as much as you.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Media didnt put that guy in our face every 5 min. to have made it noteworthy either.
> 
> I wonder why that is????


 
You're choice in media, would be my guess.


----------



## tellner (Oct 14, 2007)

Pretty much what I'd expected. Someone to the left of Ivan the Terrible does something noteworthy. The Republican Lie Machine cranks up and begins its usual tired litany of slander, lies, personal destruction, hypocrisy and sour grapes. And it's the usual bankrupt stupidity. Where you can't attack the facts, drag the man through the sewer. Where you can't drag the man through the sewer accuse anyone who has anything good to say about his of being evil or stupid.

It would be funny if it weren't so tediously predictable.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2007)

> The nine alleged errors in the film
> # Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
> 
> # The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
> ...





> "Without diagnostic evidence, a definitive link to global warming is on thin ice," he said.


 Another _Actual Scientist_http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2337023.stm


> # The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
> 
> # Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".


_ Actual scientists_ don't agree with that load of bovine feces http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11661


> # Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - *"but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".*http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_breen.pdf
> 
> 
> > # Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
> ...


----------



## Ray (Oct 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, the apparent sarcasm in your last paragraph, well, I'm just trying to reconcile that with you standing before your creator; 'Geesh, your Almighty, you gave us a nice planet, and we F'd it up. How was your day?'


Mr. Edward - Here's a public apology for me going off the deep end on Gore.  He's been awarded the Nobel Prize for work in an area that may be very important in years to come.  He's working for something he believes in and has brought important discussion and won convinced some others.

And now, because of your post, I had this dream of you and I standing before our Creator.  Me trying to apologize and seek mercy for my comments and you repeating "I didn't know you were real."  It was a tough dream to have considering I don't know you nor what you look like.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2007)

All this hoopla, and I can't help but wonder why Monks in Burma didn't win the prize, or another worthy canidate who's life is actually on the line for peace. Not that Gore shouldn't be recognized for his work or anything, but this is  "peace" prize.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 14, 2007)

*Don* could you supply the source you drew on for those 9 Supposed Errors in Al Gores work?

I ask only because it is not speculation about the shutdown of the Atlantic Conveyor - it's happened before (and it's stuttering right now).  As a resident of one of the countries to benefit from the conveyor you can imagine that I have a greater interest than average in research on it's functioning .

We've been through this (to borrow *Cruentus's* word) word hooplah before so it's a bit fruitless to cover the same ground again.  Global temperature fluctuations are a very real phenomenon that we're starting to get a handle on the pattern of.  The impact of humankind on the global environment is likewise an implicated factor, even if only via an aggregation of our local effects.  Not too many climatologists are currently sitting on the side of the naysayers, having shifted their views (like all good scientists do) as the evidence mounted.

We should be in a deepening ice age at the moment and, given that climate change can happen very rapidly indeed, there's no saying that the current warming trend will not turn out to be the trigger for a new glaciation cycle.

Regardless, we know what we don't know more than what we can prove at present.  As such, to get out and push on a natural trend with our own activities is insane.

Then again, it's fairly moot as the magnetic pole shift is also underway and that we can't do anything about (which is why you don't hear much about it).  Stock up on the factor 5000 rad-block suncream.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2007)

The British High Court judge ruled on Friday that Mr. Gore's movie was "broadly accurate" but contained nine "errors". The ruling was apparently based from a lawsuit one Stuart Dimmock to restrict the viewing of 'An Inconvienent Truth'. 

The actual "errors" being referenced have to do with a British law (S407) that demands when an opinion is voiced, any countering opinion must be presented as well. So, the ruling specifically deals with British law, and not the actual science involved. After all, a judge is hardly the correct person to ask for scientific validation or discreditation. 

This blog provided some interesting comments on the ruling. If one was inclined to read further on this matter. 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> After all, a judge is hardly the correct person to ask for scientific validation or discreditation.


But a failed politician is?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 14, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> *Don* could you supply the source you drew on for those 9 Supposed Errors in Al Gores work?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml



> the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It is, he ruled, a "political film".


As far as Hurricane Katrina is concerned, the vast amount of damage was caused by the levies which had not been properly maintained in years, despite upstanding, responsible democrats being in office in Louisiana and New Orleans. That New Orleans flooded as badly as it did should surprise NO ONE! It's a PORT city that is mostly BELOW sea level, that in itself is the makings for disastrous flooding.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> We've been through this (to borrow *Cruentus's* word) word hooplah before so it's a bit fruitless to cover the same ground again.


 
I agree in that I don't think that the intention of the thread is to debate global warming in as much as it would be to discuss the award.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2007)

Back to the topic at hand ... well, not really.

http://borowitzreport.com/



> Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming, the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Nobel and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead.
> 
> For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of the Nobel committee and the world, the high courts decision to give his prize to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 15, 2007)

Excuse me?!  

There seems to be something wrong with my eyes.  Either that or my irony filter is on the blink again.

If it was thought that the Peace Prize was inappropriate for a chap whose been working to bring the problem of Global Warming out of the closet, how on earth is it appropriate for the President Most In favour of Global War?

Sorry - I forgot.  I'm not taking part in these non-martial related partisan arguments anymore. But that startled me so much I typed before I realised I was breaking my own injunction .  Shh ... don't tell anyone :lol:.

PHEW: Irony filter working again after a whack with a hammer.  Thank goodness .  Sad indictment of how American politics is perceived outside of it's shores that I was nearly prepared to believe that was true ... until I read the article all the way down :lol:.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2007)

Eyes not deceiving.
Irony Filter must be on the fritz. 
Borowicz is a relatively obscure comedian, but a comedian, none the less. 

That his article could even be conceived is sadly relevant to the left right vitriol you drew attention to earlier on this thread. 


And ... while many here may accuse me of encouraging that vitriol since joining this board in 2003, I will point out a couple of things ... first, I was country, when country wasn't cool. When President Bush has approval ratings at 97%, I was in the remaining 3%. 

And there are Republicans for whom I have great admiration. I donated cash to the McCain (R-NV) '00 campaign. I donated cash to the '00 Hatch (R-UT) campaign. I would like very much for Senator Hagel (R-NE) to run this time. 

Far be it from me to tell the Republican Party how to run their organization. But under Bush, Lott, Delay, Gingrich, Hastert, et al, they have been deserving of my vitriol.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 15, 2007)

The New York Times has finally killed there 'Times Select' portion of their web site. We can now read their Op-Ed columnists at no charge. 

Mr. Krugman has some interesting observations here ... 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin



> What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
> 
> ...
> 
> Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He&#8217;s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever.


 
An interesting recollection from Mr. Krugman. A different President Bush once referred to Mr. Gore as 'ozone-man'. His reference was derogatory in tone and intent.

I guess some things are hereditary.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> But a failed politician is?


 
Only special (read the politics mesh with the media/hollywood/etc) politicians.


----------



## tellner (Oct 15, 2007)

It figures. The Rightwingnuts screech about "9 errors! 9 errors!" as if it were Gospel. And as if they weren't actively opposed to science as a concept. Then it turns out that their great British champion, the Goliath who took on Gore's David was *drumroll* a mining and fuel company magnate who has set up groups specifically to combat environmentalists. 

It shouldn't even be close to surprising. If it interferes with making money it has to be lies and evil. If the truth is, hmm, "inconvenient" you need to slander the person who tells it. And if you don't like what someone says, then whatever he says must be wrong.

And people wonder why the Greedy Old Plutocrats (or is that Gay Old Pedophiles these days?) don't like the - and I quote directly - "reality-based community."


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Back to the topic at hand ... well, not really.
> 
> http://borowitzreport.com/


 
lol! That was pretty funny.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 15, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> lol. Good point. THey sort of lost credability when they gave one to Arafat!


 
Sort of?  Man, the only thing that would make the Nobel Peace Prize worth anything would be if they printed it on two-ply.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 15, 2007)

Here is a link that lists the past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize and what they did to receive it.  I'm not for or against Al Gore, but looking through the winners I see no reason why he should not have gotten it.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

I think more people object to the award because of who got it, than what was done.  I'd be willing to bet that if just the organization got the award and Al Gore's name was no included no one would care that the group got the award for global warming.


----------



## crushing (Oct 15, 2007)

tellner said:


> It shouldn't even be close to surprising. If it interferes with making money it has to be lies and evil. *If the truth is, hmm, "inconvenient" you need to slander the person who tells it.* And if you don't like what someone says, then whatever he says must be wrong.
> 
> And people wonder why the *Greedy Old Plutocrats* (or is that *Gay Old Pedophiles* these days?) don't like the - and I quote directly - "reality-based community."


 
I'm still not sure if you are trying to be serious, or doing a 'The Onion' type schtick by showing that neither left nor right are above the fray when it comes to these _games_.

The Occidental Tourist


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 15, 2007)

And I think that nobody would care if we objected or complained in regards  to one of those other "nobody" Nobel prize winners. People are only upset that its Al we are talking about.....so thats a 2 way street.

Were only griping because its Al, you only care because its Al. We only care because we dont believe in the scare mongering hype of global warming, you only care because you do. Blah blah blah.


----------

