Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Oct 13 2007, 01:05 AM) [snapback]525017[/snapback]</div>

Their collective findings were incredibly different than what was shown in the movie. How many centuries according to the IPCC report would it take to raise sea level 20 ft? Do you think these same scientists would insinuate Katrina was a result of AGW? Get real. Maybe next years Nobel winner will be Chicken Little himself. The Nobel Prize will now be forever political.

 

Evan, don't shoot! Sorry, I misread your post.

MP, so the verdict is that nine major claims of Gore's opinion mocumentary aren't backed by science, but some undefined other parts are. And you want to hang your hat on that?

As for the other international crises ignored by Gore, I'd invite you to read the Nobel charter (modified partly in 2003 to encourage awards to politicians) that states the award is to foster international peace. Yet I can't think of a single individual anywhere in the world killed by man-made global warming. From that you'll see that the one changing the subject is the Nobel committee itself, not me. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your attitude reflects a callous cynicism I haven't seen in a long time, unless you really do believe a few million peasants are meaningless compared to Gore's fantasy.

There can be some common ground here. I don't put as much into a judge's opinion as I do an actual meteorologist. Ironically, on the day the Nobel was awarded, one of the world's preeminent meteorologists, Dr. William Gray, offered his opinion about Gore's delusion using words such as "ridiculous", "brainwashing" and "foolish". Interesting that the story wasn't carried in the American mainstream press:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gor...1696238792.html

I still think Norwegian phones are excellent, though. B)

 

I'm disturbed by the amount of negativity in these posts. Everyone bit*hes about why don't people stand up and do something, anything. And here someone is doing something. never mind whether it is the absolute 100% RIGHT thing (to you) or not, at least he is doing ANYTHING to change minds to focus on the environment. And all the little people here want to feel significant by giving their two cents on what a terrible job Gore is doing. I think if you have not risen up and comitted any of your own resources to ANY cause like he has then you have no right to complain. I'm not a Gore supporter however I think it's great that he did something with his influence and didn't just melt away into obscurity, doing nothing. He is at least owed some respect for that.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!

(OOPS DIFFERENT SITE)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 12 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]525005[/snapback]</div>

Let's for the moment assume Gore has no credentials to be speaking about scientific facts. Still, he is TRYING to have a positive influence on an international problem (and you can also assume this 'problem' doesn't exist, but he is still doing SOMETHING).

Since the 1960's there have been many presidents/vice presidents come and gone. Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr. and soon to be Bush Jr. are on the Republican side. I can't remember any of those presidents or their vices (still living) leveraging their past presidency to continue to work for the common good.

Now the Democrats...Carter & Clinton (with Gore as vice). Lets hold them up to the same standard of leveraging their fame to help the common people of the world. Carter, well no matter what you think of him, he has certainly devoted his whole life being a leader whether spiritual or with his numerous projects including his work with Habitat for Humanity. Clinton has started his global outreach via may outlets including his philanthropy. Gore?? Again, he picked himself up after his stint in DC and has also done his best to give of himself to the greater good through his continuing work with Global Warming, which he was preaching about long before his stint as VP.

Now, at least the Democrats have TRIED where as I don't see similar efforts on the other side of the aisle. What does this say for the character of the people in both parties? Let's further refine character by cutting loose extreme lockstep supporters on both sides of the political spectrum, and aim for the middle. No matter what you think of ANY of the past presidents/vices, the answer is still the same. In my mind and the way I judge character it is not so much the results as the TRYING/INTENT that counts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 13 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]525300[/snapback]</div>

Well, you just don't understand the neocons point of view. They don't give a red rats a$$ about whether you tried to do something. If there isn't 100% scientific proof, it isn't so (kind of the reverse of if the glove don't fit you have to acquit...). The neocons would much rather spread democracy by war.... There is something biblical about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 13 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]525291[/snapback]</div>

Dr. Gray is a well known skeptic of human caused global warming. His views on the subject put him in the distinct minority of climate scientists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 13 2007, 06:28 PM) [snapback]525300[/snapback]</div>

I don't totally disagree that at least you have to give Gore credit for trying. But I do feel the Nobel committee has made an error of lasting damage here in giving the "peace prize" to somebody who, despite what some may laud as good works, has really done nothing to further the cause of world peace. That is not a slam against Gore - but a slam against the Nobel committee. Had it been a "Nobel Environmental Prize", fine - even though I disagree in large measure with the alarmism Gore has brought to the issue. But Nobel Peace Prize - it smacks of pure politics to me. The Nobel committee has an agenda to push and are using the Peace Prize to do it. Just my 2 cents...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 13 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]525341[/snapback]</div>

The Nobel committee has recognized that Global Warming itself is a threat to world peace. Wars will be fought over water resources if we continue unchanged on the path we're currently on.

It shouldn't be Al Gore who is in dispute for winning but the U.N. Committee that shared the prize with him. Nobel intended his prize to be awarded to individuals, not Committees or Government Agencies as few everyday folks could hope to be on a Government Commitee or Agency, but any individual could do something significant enough to be recognized by the Nobel Committee.

 

I'd like to know what he intends to do with the cash portion of the prize. Will he donate it to environmental causes or will he use it to pay some for his future travel on chartered jets while we fly coach along with 300 others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 13 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]525291[/snapback]</div>

Well, if put you more stock in scientists, then you'd actually not dispute AGW. As also stated in the judge's opinion:

I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:
"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Those presenting the suit presented the judge with an enormous list of "alleged errors or exagerations" -- not MAJOR ERRORS as you so hyperbolically put it -- of which the judge found nine to have some merit. The nine "errors" are relatively minor and in no way challenge the scientific consensus on AGW, a consensus endorsed by the judge above. One can only imagine how many errors the judge might have found if invited to view a piece of work like The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Stopping the degradation of our climate, and the consequent wars that would ensue, is an effort of peace.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 14 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]525418[/snapback]</div>

Gore: "I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

 

MP, I wrote meteorologist, not scientist. The judge is neither.

To those congratulating Gore for trying, I say he should finish the line of inquiry outlined in the scientific method or, even easier and with a Toyota twist, employ the methods of J. Edward Deming:

Plan --> Do --> Check --> Act

From what I've seen and read, Gore went from Plan --> Do and stopped. I see him as planning his own legacy, enhancing his lifestyle and lecturing the rest of us to throttle (pun intended) ours. I just don't believe his self-aggrandizing proclamation that "the science is settled".

Poor Al, I do feel for him after getting a larger popular vote than Bush nationwide, then failing to understand the function of the Electoral College. I hope this makes him feel better, Tipper, too.

 

Hi Amped,


Well, the science is settled as much as we need to act. The climate is getting warmer. It really does not matter if humans are causing it or not. Every other creature on the planet has to adapt, humans should too. If that means reducing CO2 emissions, since we has humans have the inteligence to know to do that to help the climate, then so be it. This is basically the "Gaia Hypotheis" in action. Deny that we have to do something, and we risk an outcome not beneficial to human life.

If and when the climate cools, then we might want to make more CO2. Until then, the reverse action is needed.

I really do not see how it benefits Al at all to be the messenger. Your comment Indeed, proves the reverse. So, where is the logic in calling it self-agrandizing? Self agrandizing is being the lone occupant in an SUV in a morning commute every day. I highly doubt Al exposed himself to the negative politics that resulted from his adulthood position on global warming to win the Nobel Prize.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wkramer @ Oct 14 2007, 07:52 AM) [snapback]525397[/snapback]</div>

He's donating it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 13 2007, 09:28 PM) [snapback]525300[/snapback]</div>

Much as I would like to agree with you on this, I have to disagree. Bush Sr., in partnership with Clinton, worked on a number of international charitable projects.

(I really do think that H.W. Bush likes Clinton more than his own son.)

 

Please tell us you experts what is the correct temp for planet earth? Why are you qualified to make that determination? I think 85 and 15% humidity would be perfect, not everyone will agree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Oct 14 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]525479[/snapback]</div>

I consider Bush Sr. as more of a hanger-on. I don't see him actively leading anything. He shows up but he doesn't seem to spearhead anything. I don't see him out and about, actively promoting or fighting for anything. Just lending his name and presence when asked.

As far as what presidents do in their "retirement" I admire Jimmy Carter the most. He did more than just talk about Habitat for Humanity. The man knows how to use powertools and isn't afraid to swing a hammer. That's my kind of leading by example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 13 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]525188[/snapback]</div>

Like Arafat and Carter winning the Nobel and now Gore. This is a worthless prize that has been used for political purposes for decades and Al Gore winning it proves it. At least they still give one for Physics and Medicine where you actually have to prove your science before they hand out the "prize"!