Quoting Klaus (Reply 37): Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 29): since when is CO2 a pollution? Since its massive emissions have begun to cause damage on multiple fronts. Climate change is just one of those.

Pray tell us, what do plants use to create the oxygen we need to live?

Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 45): Al Gore:s movie is stopped in UK schools and can not be shown there. The UK Supreme Court do not find it accurate to be shown for school children.

Both false.

Quoting Banco (Reply 46): Yes, they do. And it would be foolish to deny that the weight of scientific opinion is in that direction. Nevertheless, what does leave many uneasy is the almost religious zeal with which someone like yourself advances all the pro-climate change perspectives and dismisses out of hand any contrary view.

"Out of hand"? Hardly.

I've patiently explained many, many times over the years how the process of scientific discovery works and where specifically certain claims are inconsistent with well-supported scientific theories and the evidence they are based on (and what the actual nature of scientific theories even is).

Do I get sarcastic at a certain point? You bet. Does that make your claim above correct? No, it doesn't if you're actually looking at my posts.

Quoting Banco (Reply 46): If you aren't a scientist yourself, what it comes down to is you believing those viewpoints.

No. If anything, I am as certain as I can be that the scientific principle may be imperfect, but it is the best way to build and optimize load-bearing knowledge about the world around us in many areas.

Load-bearing as in being a sound and reliable basis for personal and political decisions in the areas where science can make reliable and useful conclusions, primarily in the areas of natural sciences.

Scientific knowledge is always a matter of relative levels of certainty. But the summary dismissal of any scientific conclusion without even knowing what they actually mean and what their context is deserves and sometimes requires a rebuttal.

Quoting Banco (Reply 46): And you've never struck me as someone who is particularly sceptical, viz. your advancement of all things EU, Mac or climate change, rather someone who has faith, and proselytises accordingly, being completely incapable of understanding that others might hold a contrary view.

If you actually looked at my posts you'd find that claim to be false, subjective impressions notwithstanding.

Quoting Banco (Reply 46): Furthermore, if the perspective espoused by Gore is so clearly the conventional wisdom, why did he feel the need to offer so much "evidence" that consisted of half-truths, exaggerations and even flat out lies.

Have you ever tried to make a presentation of a highly abstract topic for popular consumption?

It is exceedingly difficult to consistently maintain reasonable precision while being understandable by people who don't have the same contextual background you yourself may have.

I've seen many people stumble severely on parts of their presentation even where they certainly should have known better - myself included. In many cases cutting away context and editing the result can effectively amount to a distortion when looked at without the knowledge and context the original author may have possessed.

Add to that that Gore himself is an activist amateur, not a scientist himself. So large parts of the movie have had to be translated at least twice - once from science to the filmmakers, then again for the audience.

Considering that it is quite remarkable that climatologists who had been asked about the movie had several points to criticize about it but all in all called it an impressive and generally correct representation of the (then) current state of climate research.

As to "flat out lies": Care to substantiate?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 48): Did you not read my post on the Global warming thread.

Um, which one...?   

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 48): About the nice profits in the insurance industry

Ah. No. Apparently not.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 48): Lloyd’s Chief Executive Richard Ward added: “These profits reflect the recent favourable rating environment and a relatively low level of catastrophe claims. We are now seeing a downward pressure on rates and a softening of conditions across all classes. This reinforces the continued need to focus on underwriting for profit.”

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 48): Posting the same old lie does not make it become true Klaus

Indeed.

What you seem to have been missing, is that your quote is from Lloyd's reports interim results for the six month period ending 30 June 2007.

It is nice to hear that Lloyds did good business these six months, but unfortunately that's only a tiny short-term piece of the puzzle. The entire picture looks quite a bit differently, and it includes these elements as well:

The Association Of British Insurers - Climate Change:

Coastal Homeowners Can't Find Insurance - Newsweek Business - MSNBC.com

Insurance and Climate Change

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 48): Please elaborate on those multiple fronts. And can you post a peer reviewed study that makes CO2 a pollution.

Besides the issue of the (slightly incorrectly named) greenhouse effect there are several other problems as well.

One of them: CO2 combines with water into a mild acid. The substantial increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere caused by our species automatically leads to a shifting of the PH level in the oceans and in the fertile soil all around the planet towards the acidic side.

report by the Royal Society - Oceans turning to acid from rise in CO2:

Quote: The pH (potential of Hydrogen) scale is from 1 to 14, with 7 being neutral. Anything that lowers pH makes the solution more acidic. The scientists calculated that over the past 200 years, the pH of the surface seawater has declined by 0.1 units, which is a 30% increase in hydrogen ions. If emissions of CO2 continue to rise as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s IS92a scenario, there will be another drop in pH by .5 units by 2100, a level that has not existed in the oceans for many millions of years. In addition, the changes in the oceans’ chemistry will reduce their ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, which in turn will accelerate the rate of global warming. "This report should sound the alarm bells around the world," remarked Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Department of Global Ecology. "It provides compelling evidence for the need for a thorough understanding of the implications of ocean acidification. It also strengthens the case for rapid progress on reducing CO2 emissions."

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 45): Al Gore:s movie is stopped in UK schools and can not be shown there. The UK Supreme Court do not find it accurate to be shown for school children. Both false.

Correct. What can't be done is to have it shown as an unbiased documentary to inform the children.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): "Out of hand"? Hardly. I've patiently explained many, many times over the years how the process of scientific discovery works and where specifically certain claims are inconsistent with well-supported scientific theories and the evidence they are based on (and what the actual nature of scientific theories even is). Do I get sarcastic at a certain point? You bet. Does that make your claim above correct? No, it doesn't if you're actually looking at my posts.

Well, (and I guess this ties into some stuff further down your post) the example of flaws in the Gore film have been highlighted, yet you defend it. Why?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): Have you ever tried to make a presentation of a highly abstract topic for popular consumption?

That's a dreadful justification. What I hope you're not saying is that the people are too dim to appreciate the facts, therefore it must be dressed up with gross inaccuracies to make the point. But that's the implication of what you say. On the contrary, what it does is to diminish the point being made, because it is a polemic, and one you simply can't trust.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): Add to that that Gore himself is an activist amateur, not a scientist himself. So large parts of the movie have had to be translated at least twice - once from science to the filmmakers, then again for the audience

Another poor excuse. Balanced scientific documentaries are made without resorting to cheap tactics all the time. Given the scale of the budget, there's simply no excuse for advancing an argument using flawed data - if you want to be taken seriously.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): As to "flat out lies": Care to substantiate?

You've seen the list above. Given that some of them are pretty basic, it is inconceivable that with the number of scientists involved in advising Gore, that it could be an "error".

As always, I'm going to avoid the useless debate, each side is dug in and nothing that is said on A.net will do anything other than harden their position. But I've got to admit, I got a grin out of this award, just for knowing how much it's going to stick in some members' craw!  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): Besides the issue of the (slightly incorrectly named) greenhouse effect there are several other problems as well.

????

In case you have forgotten, humans are carbon-based lifeforms. Plants use CO2 to make oxygen for LIFE. Carbon is the ocean is used by many organisms to create their shells, etc., etc., etc.

In all this s**t about how 'bad' all these levels of CO2 are, CO2 is made to seem as a pollutant, when it is NOTHING of the sort. It is a NECESSITY for life.

Just try to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and wait for the results.

Awesome. I still think he's full of nonsense.

Quoting Pope (Reply 2): And an Emmy.

It's real hard to when an Emmy/Oscar from those hard nosed conservative Hollywood types 

The Nobel Peace Prize lost its credibility way back in the 1930s-40s when the awards committee tied themselves in knots on multiple occasions to deny it to one person singularly worthy of it during the 20th century - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

While they've since accorded it to MLK, Dalai Lama, Mandela, Suu Kyi and several others who were inspired by Gandhi, it will never change the blot on the Nobel committee.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55): It's real hard to when an Emmy/Oscar from those hard nosed conservative Hollywood types

Fack. "win", not "when" 

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 56): The Nobel Peace Prize lost its credibility way back in the 1930s-40s when the awards committee tied themselves in knots on multiple occasions to deny it to one person singularly worthy of it during the 20th century - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

That's an interesting read. I suppose you could say that not awarding one at all in 1948 is as clear an indication as you could get that it is really Gandhi's award, isn't it? But yes, a rather startling omission.

All three of my kids have been shown his movie in school , my 7th grader has seen it 3 times , my sophomore has seen it 3 times .... and my 5th grader has seen it once. .. Programming anyone ???

By the way my Sophomore wrote a semester composition term paper countering many of the points in a inconvenient "truth". Also her and the key club group organize recycling events for her school.
It is very convenient that she just finished her world studies report on another Nobel peace prize winner .... thats right ol Yasir Arrafat... perfect !

Ex Vice President Gore has been given a Oscar , red carpeted everywhere , and now a Nobel peace prize ?.... Can a blue blood do nothing politician possibly get more gushy love from the enlightened ones...?

Great for Al Gore!   . Lets face it, 2007 is a weak year for quality candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize. Regardless on what your feeling are regarding the topic, at least he is taking a stand and getting people to talk about it. Still wonder what the United States would be like today, if he was sworn in as President in 2001.

Quoting Banco (Reply 58): The Nobel Peace Prize lost its credibility way back in the 1930s-40s when the awards committee tied themselves in knots on multiple occasions to deny it to one person singularly worthy of it during the 20th century - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That's an interesting read. I suppose you could say that not awarding one at all in 1948 is as clear an indication as you could get that it is really Gandhi's award, isn't it? But yes, a rather startling omission.

Gandhi was doubtless the most glaring of all Nobel peace prize omissions. There have been many others in different categories. The fact that James Joyce didn't get the literature prize is mind-boggling for me, while laureates like Reymont and García Márquez are my (admittedly personal) candidates for the "WTF are you doing in Stockholm" award.

Oh well, the Scandinavian mind is inscrutable...   

Quoting Toast (Reply 61): The fact that James Joyce didn't get the literature prize is mind-boggling for me,

Maybe the judges, like most of us, found him utterly unreadable...  

Quoting Banco (Reply 62): Maybe the judges, like most of us, found him utterly unreadable...

Philistine!  

Congratulations Al Gore to his Nobel Price! A worthy person to win it.

Disgusting to see how some people's political partisanship is so extreme that they begrudge a man of his Nobel Price just because it doesn't fit their personal agenda. Ridiculous how every Mr Joe Nobody from Nowhere, Mississippi suddenly becomes an expert on global warming. It's not worth arguing with these people anymore, and I admire those who still put up the patience to repeat the same arguments again and again.

"What does global warming have to do with world peace" - this must the most moronic statement I've read in a while. Pray that your children and grandchildren willl still have the chance of displaying a similarly ignorant attitude.

Not worthwhile.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 59): All three of my kids have been shown his movie in school , my 7th grader has seen it 3 times , my sophomore has seen it 3 times .... and my 5th grader has seen it once. .. Programming anyone ???

Showing a documentary in class is one of the laziest forms of teaching unless the purpose of showing the documentary is to engage students in a critical analysis of it.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 53): But I've got to admit, I got a grin out of this award, just for knowing how much it's going to stick in some members' craw!

It would if the award had the merit that many seem to give it. It's not so much an irritant as it is a disappointment.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 60): Still wonder what the United States would be like today

It would likely be a more obvious political cesspool than it is now.

But I would like to thank Mr. Gore for turning me on to occidental petroleum , I bought the stock when it was 18.00 bucks in 04 now close to $70 !! Ok I take back the bad stuff I said about him   give him any award he wants!

Quoting Rara (Reply 64): "What does global warming have to do with world peace" - this must the most moronic statement I've read in a while.

I'm a moron, then. Or maybe I'm just thinking of this detail (from wiki):

Quote: 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".

The global warming debate and its chief activist Al Gore have IMO done nothing to disarm anybody, or to improve international relations. Or am I missing something?   

Al Gore may have well deserved a major prize for his work (I'm no specialist, and to be honest I didn't see his movie and I'm not interested in climate patterns, so I'll let others judge), but the peace prize seams nonsensical to me. Al Gore has at best given people food for thought - and for comedy, because of his well-known "do what I say, don't do what I do" philosophy - but I honestly can't see a single thing he did in his life to make this world a more peaceful place. Do you?

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 65): Showing a documentary in class is one of the laziest forms of teaching

   But it's a great way to keep the bastards busy when you need to catch your breath or when you have a sore throat.  

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 11): He basically cobbled together information for a film, and narrated it.

He's been doing the same basic points and slides/ narration since at least 1988. The film came about because someone saw his PowerPoint slide show and decided to put up the money to film it and bring up the production values.

It a more fair comparison to liken Gore's efforts to a teacher rather than a researcher.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"

The film may have done a lot to bring him to world attention.

After all how many people in other countries can name the most recent four or five US Vice President - or in the US for that matter.

This just lowers the prestige and credibility of the Nobel prize another couple of notches. It's proof of what five drunk Norwegians can screw up.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Well-deserving of the award for their dedication to the study of this issue using hard science. Gore's peace credentials however, are questionable--ask any Iraqi that lived through the 1990s (or more telling yet, those who didn't). In my opinion, he is undeserving of this honor.

Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 65): critical analysis of it.

5th and 7th graders are not very well suited for critical analysis ... my sophomore is a little different however. They debated the movie in her Enviro Science class. However it was more from the angle that the movie is true .. so what can we do about it. What can we do about Polar bears drowning ? Well what do you think the kids are going to say ... ? Not a very open debate from what she told me... hence her composition term paper.

Quoting Toast (Reply 7): And I don't see how pointing out that a lot of snow is melting advances peace in the world.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 33): Could someone enlighten me as to the last time two or more countries or peoples went to war over global warming

While I'm not arguing that these are pretty far fetched scenarios, it isn't hard to imagine lack of water or an increase in migration due to desertification somewhere down the road, which could case tensions between countries.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 26): What about her?

Precisely. She didn't do that much before 1992, when she was awarded the Prize. Her claim to fame was being the subject of a 1982 book about her life and became a bit more active AFTER winning the Nobel. Truth is that the 1992, the Nobel had to be awarded to an amerindian, for colonial era face-washing was en vogue back then, during the 500 years of the destruction of Mesoamerica remembrance.

Mayan indigenous -> educated by nuns in Catholic Schools -> tried to bring some high level Guatemalan war time criminals to Spanish justice

Don't know, but from the distance doesn't sound very amerindian.

I saw him last week at the airport on his way out to Mexico city. He pulled up to his private jet in the back of a Prius. The funny thing is that he had a black suburban full of luggage and 3 body guards pull up to the jet in front of him! He sat scrunched up in the back of the Prius talking on his cell for 10 minutes.

Congrats to him, hope he enjoy his stay in Oslo.

You guys should've seen the riot at my school's meteorology department, my weather instructor was rather pissed. Gore doesn't deserve it according to the whole department, and judging from what I've been lectured in my meteo classes, I agree 100% with my instructors.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 74): Quoting Klaus (Reply 26): What about her? Precisely. She didn't do that much before 1992, when she was awarded the Prize. Her claim to fame was being the subject of a 1982 book about her life and became a bit more active AFTER winning the Nobel. Truth is that the 1992, the Nobel had to be awarded to an amerindian, for colonial era face-washing was en vogue back then, during the 500 years of the destruction of Mesoamerica remembrance.

Falsification of testimony in her 'autobiography'.

Admitted by her already.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner conceded yesterday that she mixed the testimony of other victims of Guatemala's civil war with her own life story in her account, ''I, Rigoberta Menchu.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...9A07E5D7163AF931A25751C0A96F958260

OK, so what exactly did Al Gore do to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? I don't see how his position on global warming is that important to peace.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 27): Says who? The scientists actually working in the field agree that it's the most probable explanation of the observations they are making. Without the same level of insight, what gives you the apparent certainty that they are wrong after all?

Klaus, I’m not going to get into this again with you. You can find a bunch of scientists, I can find a bunch of scientists who say something else, we can have a big ole science circle jerk and we’ll have this argument again about Kyoto, or global warming, or the enviro-cultists again in a few months. Many of Gore’s claims have been factually repudiated, it’s classic Hollywood embellishment packaged for emotional reaction.

Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 35): Excuse me? Gorbachev? Who else would have earned the price back in 1990 if not him? Remember, it's his merit that the revolution in Eastern Germany, Poland, the CSSR and so in didn't get bloody in 1989....

Reagan for starters. Gorbachev reacted and capitulated to the pressure that the rest of the world, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, leveraged to end the Cold War. Besides, the USSR was having a hard time putting bread on the table by then. But hey, at least he finally pulled out of Afghanistan…

It wasn’t his merit that prevented a bloody revolution, it was good fortune. Gorbachev actually pushed for restoration of the Soviet constitution in the Baltics as late as 1991. The secession wave was unavoidable. Remember, the blood shed in Vilnius didn’t have to be…

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 59): All three of my kids have been shown his movie in school , my 7th grader has seen it 3 times , my sophomore has seen it 3 times .... and my 5th grader has seen it once. .. Programming anyone ???

Exactly- brainwash the kiddies, indoctrinate them, so that you raise a nation of good little lemmings who don’t resist when the next incremental grab for wealth and income redistribution happens. That’s part of the plan—envirosocialism as a means of the power grab.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 75): I saw him last week at the airport on his way out to Mexico city. He pulled up to his private jet in the back of a Prius. The funny thing is that he had a black suburban full of luggage and 3 body guards pull up to the jet in front of him! He sat scrunched up in the back of the Prius talking on his cell for 10 minutes.

Nice. Classic hypocrisy. Algore is the emperor with no clothes. What a hypocrite. His total lack of character, his repeat deceptions and façade of purity is so transparent, it’s laughable.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 79): OK, so what exactly did Al Gore do to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

For get the media - go to the source:

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control.

Oslo, 12 October 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If, big IF, global warming results in some of the milder climate changes predicted - it will cause the greatest outbreak of fighting around the globe ever seen.

Just imagine the chaos of relocating the majority of the population from Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Charlotte, Norfolk, Baltimore, New York, Boston and other cities to the US midwest.

Not saying it's going to happen or agreeing or disagreeing. But the climate change would be more disruptive and violent than any of the world wars.

Quoting Toast (Reply 68): The global warming debate and its chief activist Al Gore have IMO done nothing to disarm anybody, or to improve international relations. Or am I missing something? eyebrow

Yes. Disarming anyone or promoting international relations are valid contributions to world peace, but they're not the only ones. If the predictions by the most insightsome scholars are anything to go by, the great conflicts of the future will be based on wars on resources, inhabitable land, water, etc.

To be honest, global warming doesn't interest me one bit. But I know that if we continue to treat our planet and our resources like we're doing now, we're going to run into extreme problems. If Al Gore's influence serves to create awareness and a proactive approach to the problems while we still have time, then he's promoting world peace.

I don't know whether he's the one who deserves the Nobel Price the most. But I'm annoyed by the know-it-alls (and I'm not talking about you here) whose conservative political mindset forces them to subscribe to a world view in which global warming doesn't exist simply because they don't want it to -- proving their points with some minor mistake they found in his documentary. Pathetic.

Wow...the Nobel Peace Prize has become just like the Beijing Olympics....a total farce.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 81): If, big IF, global warming results in some of the milder climate changes predicted - it will cause the greatest outbreak of fighting around the globe ever seen.

Which does lead me to be somewhat sceptical here. It seems that the doomsayers are of the view that climate change means that all weather everywhere will get worse. There's no reason at all to believe that. It's just as possible that climate change will lead to improvements in some, if not just as many, places.

I'm sure that man-made climate change is a genuinely held view by the majority of scientists, it's just that the "end of the world in all cases" dogma doesn't lend itself to indicating veracity.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe.

And that's why the US is the only remaining superpower in the world. Not to mention, the economic powerhouse that is the US economy. So for the US citizen, yeah it is a good thing that the rest of the planet is "under control of the political left".

At last we have another American that could be admired internationally, this is good, knowing how horrid our image is at present throughout the world this is great news. I can see that many detractors today are still bashing against a man that represent no political threat at all to them.

Good for them he is not running for President. Yet.

Quoting Rara (Reply 82): If the predictions by the most insightsome scholars are anything to go by, the great conflicts of the future will be based on wars on resources, inhabitable land, water, etc.

Actually, you don't need to be a distinguished scholar to predict that. Add religion and you have the reasons for all wars ever fought.

Quoting Rara (Reply 82): If Al Gore's influence serves to create awareness and a proactive approach to the problems while we still have time, then he's promoting world peace.

The problem is, it's extremely difficult to predict just how much influence Gore will have had on future generations. Awarding him the Nobel Prize so soon, and "coincidentally" during the presidential campaign in the US, is more than slightly suspicious IMO. Look at the age of the average Nobel Prize winner. People usually receive it when there's no doubt that their influence had been indeed decisive. Gore is too young and his activism too recent to be sure already now that he'll come down in history as a visionary.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 81): Just imagine the chaos of relocating the majority of the population from Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Charlotte, Norfolk, Baltimore, New York, Boston and other cities to the US midwest.

If the ocean's level is indeed rising inexorably and is threatening coastal cities, that sort of situation certainly won't happen overnight. It's not like people won't know what hit them. It won't be a sudden, massive catastrophe complete with looting and people drowning in their basements.

Let's face it, nobody knows for sure what exactly is happening with the climate. Ecological awareness and preservation is always good, but I'm skeptical about the feasibility of reversing dangerous climatic trends, if there are any. As I said, I'm a complete layman as far as climatology is concerned, but a Nobel Peace Prize for Gore this year doesn't seem right.




edit:typo

[Edited 2007-10-12 14:56:10]

Quoting Rara (Reply 64): Ridiculous how every Mr Joe Nobody from Nowhere, Mississippi suddenly becomes an expert on global warming. It's not worth arguing with these people anymore, and I admire those who still put up the patience to repeat the same arguments again and again.

Smart ass comments about people of whom you know nothing are idiotic coming as they do from a nation of self professed knowitalls who are intent on doing to dialogue and differences of opinion what they did to Poland in 1939.

How about "Udo Schmidt, smartypants twit from the Spreewald" just to balance the scales of truth a little.




        

I'm going to celebrate Algore's victory by buying an SUV this weekend!!


 

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): Nice. Classic hypocrisy. Algore is the emperor with no clothes. What a hypocrite. His total lack of character, his repeat deceptions and fa?e of purity is so transparent, it?s laughable.

I actually don't mind his message, but you are right-the hypocrisy cracks me up. He rode in the Prius to maintain his image so that he can tell people that he drives in a Prius. However, he could have just as easily conserved more fuel by riding in the Suburban and leaving the Prius.

But thats to be expected from all politicians. Its all image with no substance.

On a side note, I am aware of someone who took photographs from a close and unnoticable vantage point with a professional camera. I wouldn't be suprised if it is released (sold) to a media outlet. But maybe not.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

So, then, the world is out of step with you, right ? Not you out of step with the world.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

Many scientists, of which body I am just a humble one, would beg to differ. For non-technical reference, I suggest "The Winds of Change" by Eugene Linden.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

If you do the arithmetic, based on the Greenland ice sheet, 7m or so is a decent 1st-order approximation.

I'd say your politics are likely getting in the way of your judgment.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): The IPCC aggregates the state of scientific climate research worldwide on behalf of the UN. Al Gore promotes awareness about the finiteness of our resources and the risks of CO2 pollution. Nothing silly about either of the two.

Quite. And, since the IPCC report is a consensus report, i.e., lowest common denominator, I think the real impact of global climate change is going to be much worse than what the report states. Are we driving it? A good question. I think we are having some effect, although not probably the major portion. But our effects may be driving various climatic parameters towards a tipping point.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): What a complete crock of crap. Worse than giving it to President Carter specifically for his political stance rather than actual work he's done that merited the prize.

Aren't all peace initiatives political by definition ?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19): Al Gore may be on the right track about climate change (even if he does treat the truth like silly putty) but the general consensus among Americans is that he's a bombastic douchebag.

Bombastic he may be, but consider he was more or less raised in Washington in a political family. It would happen to you, too.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe.

Good point, Klaus. I think Republicans are having a hard time accepting that THEY are now the minority, and what they term the "leftists" (i.e., middle-of-the-road Democrats) are actually the majority. With how the GOP has run roughshod over truth & reality the past seven years, to use a hockey phrase, what goes around comes around.

I think that's enough for one post. Right on Al ! Might not be 100% correct, but the message is on point.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44): And since his worldwide efforts may turn out to have a major impact on the international climate policies, even that would probably come out as a massive positive on the bottom line

Ah, yes, the old "ends justifies the means" argument. This is like Richard Nixon saying that only he could negotiate an end to the Vietnam War and the only way he could guarantee his reelection was to spy on his Democratic opponents so he was justified in authorizing the Watergate break-in so as to be reelected president, end the Vietnam War, and save lives in Southeast Asia. Let's face it, Al Gore could sell off his multiple mansions, buy a one-room shack, set up a television broadcast studio from his shack, and broadcast his message about man-made global warming 24 hours a day without the need to travel around the world in pollution spewing private jets. Any chance he will do this? I wouldn't bet on it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): In other words, it is a propaganda piece, not a documentary, no more so than Triumph of the Wills was for Adolf Hitler. It is meant to create and encourage a market of idiots who will buy into anything "green".

What has Al Gore done to you personally, that generates so much hate towards him?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19): but the general consensus among Americans is that he's a bombastic douchebag.

Really, he did in fact receive more votes that the current president.

Quoting T773ER (Reply 85): And that's why the US is the only remaining superpower in the world. Not to mention, the economic powerhouse that is the US economy. So for the US citizen, yeah it is a good thing that the rest of the planet is "under control of the political left".

Are you really that ignorant or did you conveniently forget that our critical economic resources and access to them lie in foreign hands? Not to mention the prodigious amount of credit from China our government is banking the future on these days.

Quoting Slider (Reply 89): I'm going to celebrate Algore's victory by buying an SUV this weekend!!

Mr Big Carbon Foot print [Gore] is going to celebrate by taking a spin in a Gulfstream!   

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...hives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

February 27, 2007
Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Is Big.

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006."

What an F-ing hypocrite!

Quoting OU812 (Reply 95): In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006." What an F-ing hypocrite!

People just don't seem to get it about this guy. He wouldn't make a pimple on a good Democrat's ass.

Not only is he a misinformed and fear mongering hypocrite he won't even face up to it and answer his critics about his own personal energy consumption habits.

I was listening to an interview today on Fresh Air, it was a replay of a Terri Gross interview with Gore from last year, talking about this giant conspiracy to shove CO2 spewing coal power plants down our gullible throats...not only did he go on and on about how it was the same kinda stuff the tobacco lobby pulled in the sixties, he went on for almost an hour and never named a frickin' name.

Here's the link to the program. Give a listen and tell me WTF this man actually said. I dare you.

Hey Europe-give a listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

Quoting AirCop (Reply 93): he did in fact receive more votes that the current president.

Irrelevant. The complaint in 2000 was that Gore lost to the electoral college. Then Kerry complained in 2004 that he could have won if Ohio had gone to him, due to the electoral college, neglecting that Bush had handily won the popular vote. Can't have it both ways.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 91): what goes around comes around.

Ah, perfect 'mature' thinking. Wrong when it happened to you, completely OK when you do it to other. I get it!   

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 91): And, since the IPCC report is a consensus report

Science is littered with consensus reports that turned out to be worse for humankind than the disease they were trying to cure. After all, eminent scientists went on to build a nuclear weapon, and after they built it, got guilt pangs for having done so. And to make it all better, some scientists gave the info to the Soviets to make it all even again.

And of course, in the name of saving the environment, corn-derived ethanol is being used. Of course, the fact that a lot of poor people are now having to spend a lot more money for food does not enter into the equation.

And now, of course, after calling wolf for decades over the environment, they have found another rallying cry, CO2. This one goes on top of global cooling, nuclear winter, nitrous oxide, CFCs, PCBs, ozone hole, etc.

May I remind you that CO2 IS REQUIRED FOR LIFE ON EARTH.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 95): February 27, 2007 Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Is Big.

A different perspective :
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...icle?AID=/20070227/NEWS07/70227039

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): Irrelevant. The complaint in 2000 was that Gore lost to the electoral college.

Did I say anything about the electoral college. No, I was just stating a fact. Just because some people continue to feel inferior about Bush not winning the popular vote, you need to get over it.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): neglecting that Bush had handily won the popular vote.

a 2.4% victory in the popular vote is not winning handily.

Is it not obvious that the extreme conservatives of this forum swiftly attack the issue of global warming without any sort of consideration for its consequences on our children and grand children?

They try any sort of excuse to run away from this "inconvenient truth", yet they swiftly respond when any sort of "threat" for example Iran or the famous WMD of Iraq, which were or are apparent "urgent" threats to "civilization" and was needed a "preemptive" measure. Al Gore is seeking for "Preemptive" measures when he preaches about our current trend of damaging our environment.

Yet, is it so difficult to see that our own demise is imminent when considering that continuously we are damaging our own environment since the Industrial Revolution? Surely the technology is there to further research for different sorts of resources that would reduce the emissions. Yet the current administration is merely securing more oil that further damages our environment and would years from now ran out. Surely the amounts spent on these oil wars could be spent on that research. But no.

The attacks on Al Gore, and how people despise him on this forum without any sort of justification are irrelevant, when clearly they ignore these facts:

Son of a great senator.

Harvard graduate, with honors.

Vietnam veteran.

Award-winning investigative journalist.

Congressman.

Senator.

Vice President.

Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Best-selling author.

Environmental activist.

Academy Award winner.

And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner--