The Nobel Peace Prize has become a sham. [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

jterrell

10-12-2007, 09:21 AM

It is the Nobel prize. Peace is but one category.

Unless you are a scientist I am not sure it means that much to anyone.
It has always been political in nature as politicians hand it down.

I am not a big fan of Gore but I do see where he has tried to slowly turn the tide in America toward a more eco-friendly view. That has been accepted of late by President Bush which is rather scary considering how anti-environment Bush has been as a Governor of Texas than as President. The data must be compelling for him to have changed course.

It was awarded to IPCC and Gore ...
"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"

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 09:28 AM

I am so happy at how much this gets Atlcb's goat right now.

AtlCB

10-12-2007, 09:55 AM

I am so happy at how much this gets Atlcb's goat right now.
Ma-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a

Mavs Man

10-12-2007, 09:57 AM

I knew that when a terrorist won it.

Yeah, Arafat. That one still takes the cake.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:00 AM

I think everyone just says Nobel Peace prize and it has become so used that, that is what it has become for all of the Nobel prizes.

People do not recognize that there are categories in the Nobel Prize.

Physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. I think there is also a economics category as well.

So even if someone is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize sometimes it is in one of the other categories.

There are different categories but the prize in economics wasn't in Alfred Nobels will so some doesn't regard it as a real nobel prize. The difference between the peace prize and the other prizes is that its decided by a Norwegian committee and not the Swedish academy of science like the other categories are.

The peace prize is a political prize. Alot of former recipients has been pretty controversial.

Heres a list of former recipients:

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

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:25 AM

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:38 AM

Good...Gore deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on Global Warming.

Now they just need to get him to run for President.

Strike while the iron is hot...and Gore will never be hotter.

Won a Academy Award and a Noble Prize.

Come on Gore...get in there.

No he doesn't. His film is full of factual errors and global warming has absolutely nothing to do with promoting peace. And the committee who decide the award consists of 5 norwegian politicians.

BrAinPaiNt

10-12-2007, 11:38 AM

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 11:42 AM

And the committee who decide the award consists of 5 norwegian politicians.

Yeah, Peace really has nothing to do with Politics.

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:46 AM

Gore for President!?!?!?!

Guy has about as much charisma as a truck load full of lucky rabbits feet at a PITA convention.

NO THANKS.

Charisma has nothing to do with being a good President or not.

Making sound decisions does.

That's like saying hell...Bush is the kind of guy that I want to have a beer with...Oh that's great...he just sucks at being President.

But having said that...I think he does have more charisma now...did you see him on Saturday Night Live...he was very good.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:47 AM

Yeah, Peace really has nothing to do with Politics.

Of course it has but it has been awarded to alot of controverial people who hasn't really promoted peace at all, Al Gore being the latest on the list. And the award diminishes the other prizes awarded which are purely scientific, with the exception to the other rediculous award in litterature. Also I think its kind of funny that a peace prize is awarded in Alfred Nobels name since he was the guy who invented dynamite.

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:48 AM

No he doesn't. His film is full of factual errors and global warming has absolutely nothing to do with promoting peace. And the committee who decide the award consists of 5 norwegian politicians.

I disagree with you...he's done a lot to bring Global Warming to the forefront and that can't be bad.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:53 AM

I disagree with you.

Then please explain to me the connction between global warming and world peace. I also think his film is alarmist and contains tons of factual errors and the whole hysteria about global warming is media created.

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 11:58 AM

Then please explain to me the connction between global warming and world peace. I also think his film is alarmist and contains tons of factual errors and the whole hysteria about global warming is media created.

Look I don't care if it was for Peace...science...love...whatever.

I don't make the rules...the people that give out the Nobel Prizes do and they thought he was worthy...so there you have it.

As far as Global Warming real or not...you have missed our huge thread on that one...go read it...some will support you and some will as I do think you're wrong.

Mavs Man

10-12-2007, 12:01 PM

Good...Gore deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on Global Warming.

Now they just need to get him to run for President.

Strike while the iron is hot...and Gore will never be hotter.

Won a Academy Award and a Noble Prize.

Come on Gore...get in there.

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/techchron/2007/05/03/gore500x400.jpg

I see little benefit of him entering the race this late. Hillary has established herself as the frontrunner by several miles. He'd be stuck fighting for second with Obama, and at this point he seems more content fighting a more elevated battle in AGW rather than being bogged down in base politics once again. And with speaking engagements, a book, and a movie he's making plenty of money to survive, much more than he would as president or vp.

Mavs Man

10-12-2007, 12:02 PM

As far as Global Warming real or not...you have missed our huge thread on that one...go read it...some will support you and some will as I do think you're wrong.

What, and avoid a 200 page thread going over and over the same points? Why not? :D

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 12:04 PM

Look I don't care if it was for Peace...science...love...whatever.

I don't make the rules...the people that give out the Nobel Prizes do and they thought he was worthy...so there you have it.

As far as Global Warming real or not...you have missed our huge thread on that one...go read it...some will support you and some will as I do think you're wrong.

I have read the thread on global warming and have read quite a bit on global warming elsewere as well. For me its not whether Al Gore is a worthy winner. I really don't the people handing the peace prize in perticular is worthy of who gets the prize. And if Al Gore was even remotely discussed as a winner of any of one of the science prizes I would imidiately emmigrate . I'm quite sure he never will though.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 12:29 PM

Of course it has but it has been awarded to alot of controverial people who hasn't really promoted peace at all, Al Gore being the latest on the list. And the award diminishes the other prizes awarded which are purely scientific, with the exception to the other rediculous award in litterature. Also I think its kind of funny that a peace prize is awarded in Alfred Nobels name since he was the guy who invented dynamite.

Here's what the Peace prize is awarded for:

In addition to humanitarian efforts and peace movements, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control

Work on Global Climate Change clearly falls within that definition.

Also someone who writes this ...

rediculous award in litterature.

Really has no business criticizing a literary award.

arglebargle

10-12-2007, 12:43 PM

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 12:56 PM

What, and avoid a 200 page thread going over and over the same points? Why not? :D

:shoot5:

:D

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 12:57 PM

Here's what the Peace prize is awarded for:

In addition to humanitarian efforts and peace movements, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control

Work on Global Climate Change clearly falls within that definition.

Also someone who writes this ...

Really has no business criticizing a literary award.

Oh I'm so sorry I miss spelled a few words. But how do you figure climate change fits in to any of those categories? And where did you get these from. The correct text from the Nobels will is:

“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"

Working against climate change, whether you believe in it or not, should never have been considered an act that merits the peace prize.

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 12:58 PM

I have read the thread on global warming and have read quite a bit on global warming elsewere as well. For me its not whether Al Gore is a worthy winner. I really don't the people handing the peace prize in perticular is worthy of who gets the prize. And if Al Gore was even remotely discussed as a winner of any of one of the science prizes I would imidiately emmigrate . I'm quite sure he never will though.

Now that would be funny.:D

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 01:02 PM

I see little benefit of him entering the race this late. Hillary has established herself as the frontrunner by several miles. He'd be stuck fighting for second with Obama, and at this point he seems more content fighting a more elevated battle in AGW rather than being bogged down in base politics once again. And with speaking engagements, a book, and a movie he's making plenty of money to survive, much more than he would as president or vp.

The Dems would love for him to run...he's popular now with his Oscar and Nobel PEACE prize.

That would be nice thing to watch...the former VP going after the former First Lady...

That's never happened before.:D

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 01:26 PM

Oh I'm so sorry I miss spelled a few words. But how do you figure climate change fits in to any of those categories? And where did you get these from. The correct text from the Nobels will is:

“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"

Working against climate change, whether you believe in it or not, should never have been considered an act that merits the peace prize.

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

It is a humanitarian award -- anyone reviewing the history of the award would recognize that.

Let's see, microloans, sustainable development, doctors without borders, etc. etc. etc.

But I guess you know better than the Nobel committee.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 01:31 PM

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

It is a humanitarian award -- anyone reviewing the history of the award would recognize that.

Let's see, microloans, sustainable development, doctors without borders, etc. etc. etc.

But I guess you know better than the Nobel committee.

I guess I do since that is not what Alfred Nobel who donated the money and stipulated how it should be awarded in his will does not agree with that definition. His definition is purely about giving the award to people who promote peace. And I have a really hard time about it being given to Al Gore even for humanitarian efforts.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 01:54 PM

jterrell

10-12-2007, 01:56 PM

I guess I do since that is not what Alfred Nobel who donated the money and stipulated how it should be awarded in his will does not agree with that definition. His definition is purely about giving the award to people who promote peace. And I have a really hard time about it being given to Al Gore even for humanitarian efforts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the best place to share your concerns is probably at the very website you linked:)

Since 1990, more times than not, politics has been at heart of the award.

Alfred Nobel was very concerned with politics. He felt political concerns were the driving forces behind peace.

I probably wouldn't have awarded Gore anything here but then again I didn't cry when the other winners were named and I wouldn't now.

If you want to have a separate thread on Gore and his movie I am sure that would generate interest, debate and whatnot but the award is already handed down.

# 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
# 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
# 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
# 2004 - Wangari Maathai
# 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
# 2002 - Jimmy Carter
# 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
# 2000 - Kim Dae-jung
# 1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
# 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
# 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
# 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
# 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
# 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
# 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
# 1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
# 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
# 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

burmafrd

10-12-2007, 01:56 PM

The Nobel Peace prize used to mean something. BUT for about 30 years now it means nothing. Just another political nothing voted by politicians.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 01:58 PM

So Mother Theresa you have an issue with too?

Actually I don't like that Mother Theresa had been given the award. From what I have read she didn't deserve any award what so ever. But thats a totally different issue.

burmafrd

10-12-2007, 01:59 PM

poopyhead

10-12-2007, 02:03 PM

I would say that Gore can't be any less articulate and charismatic than Bush, so the lack of those two qualities didn't seem to hamper people from electing Bush twice.

As for global warming and peace, there are indirect links between the two. Climate change is having a significant impact on food and other resources. Often times, conflicts arise over the scarcity of these resources.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 02:03 PM

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 02:05 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the best place to share your concerns is probably at the very website you linked:)

Since 1990, more times than not, politics has been at heart of the award.

Alfred Nobel was very concerned with politics. He felt political concerns were the driving forces behind peace.

I probably wouldn't have awarded Gore anything here but then again I didn't cry when the other winners were named and I wouldn't now.

If you want to have a separate thread on Gore and his movie I am sure that would generate interest, debate and whatnot but the award is already handed down.

# 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
# 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
# 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
# 2004 - Wangari Maathai
# 2003 - Shirin Ebadi
# 2002 - Jimmy Carter
# 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
# 2000 - Kim Dae-jung
# 1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
# 1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
# 1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
# 1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
# 1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
# 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
# 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
# 1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
# 1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
# 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

I really don't have any problems with the award being given to politicians. But it should be given to politicians for their actions of promoting peace. Something Al Gore is clearly not given the award for. I think this award has turned into a feel good award for politicians. And this definately diminishes the awards importance and the other Noble awards as well.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 02:06 PM

Actually I don't like that Mother Theresa had been given the award. From what I have read she didn't deserve any award what so ever. But thats a totally different issue.

Fascinating take on the issue.

It is and has always been a humanitarian award.

Plain and simple.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 02:13 PM

What is funny here is that the founder of the international red cross won the first prize.

Let's see Red Cross. Do they work on Peace? No they provide humanitarian aid.

So either the qualifications of the award were violated by the committee right out of the gate or the qualifications differ from what you believe them to be.
Well in the first place he wasn't specifically for the founding of the Red Cross. Henry Dunant did a lot of other things as well. Such as organize the Geneva Convention and mediate in conflicts. So I would say that he was a very worth recipient of the very first Nobel peace prize. But I find the very idée of equating Henry Dunants actions to those of Al Gore almost blasphemous.

bobtheflob

10-12-2007, 02:41 PM

I met Gore once, not too long after the 2000 election. I actually found him to be a very likable guy. I just think that running for president forces people to try to be so uncontroversial and appealing to such a wide spectrum of people that it makes everyone bland and fake.

I agree with the people who have beein saying that it's never really been about peace. It's always been more for promoting the welfare of people worldwide.

I've never understood why global warming is such a political issue. What do people really have to gain from saying it exists? It's no like spending money researching it gives a financial reward for politicians or anything. People who don't believe it always say there are many flaws and uncertainties in the theory. Of course that's the case for something this large and complicated, but that doesn't mean that it's entirely false.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 02:42 PM

Well in the first place he wasn't specifically for the founding of the Red Cross. Henry Dunant did a lot of other things as well. Such as organize the Geneva Convention and mediate in conflicts. So I would say that he was a very worth recipient of the very first Nobel peace prize. But I find the very idée of equating Henry Dunants actions to those of Al Gore almost blasphemous.

Some people would find your suggestion that Mother Theresa was undeserving blasphemous as well. Dunant was at least partially recognized for his work in founding the Red Cross -- that point is undeniable.

Regardless, my point is and continues to be that this is clearly a HUMANITARIAN award and that has been shown over and over again in the awards.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 03:02 PM

Some people would find your suggestion that Mother Theresa was undeserving blasphemous as well. Dunant was at least partially recognized for his work in founding the Red Cross -- that point is undeniable.

Regardless, my point is and continues to be that this is clearly a HUMANITARIAN award and that has been shown over and over again in the awards.

And my point is that it was clearly intended as a prize for people promoting peace and that the prize has strayed from this original intention. You might think thats a good thing I don't.

And I'm of the opinion that mother Theresa is not deserving the reputation she holds today. But that is a totally different subject and not what this thread is about.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 03:28 PM

And my point is that it was clearly intended as a prize for people promoting peace and that the prize has strayed from this original intention. You might think thats a good thing I don't.

And I'm of the opinion that mother Theresa is not deserving the reputation she holds today. But that is a totally different subject and not what this thread is about.

How did it stray? Work founding the Red Cross was a major part of that first prize. It has always been about humanitarian efforts.

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 03:28 PM

jterrell

10-12-2007, 03:29 PM

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 03:35 PM

How did it stray? Work founding the Red Cross was a major part of that first prize. It has always been about humanitarian efforts.

And you don't think there is a connection between the Red Cross and promotion of peace. And as I said this was not the only thing Henry Dunant did. The first price was also split between Dunant and a leading french pacifist of the time. The funny thing is that the left wing pacifists in sweden are displeased with Gore getting the prize as well since he used to be a us vp and therefore one of the leaders of a country that has a lot of nuclear arms. Thats a different perspective though. :)

jterrell

10-12-2007, 03:37 PM

Looking at that list for the last 17 years just underlines how pathetic it is. At least half of those do not qualify. I noticed, Jt, that once again you did not answer the question posed= how does Gore getting it jive with how Nobel wanted the prize awarded? Nobel was VERY specific despite your little sad tweak about politics. But then you never take much notice of original intent if it does not agree with your agenda.

Burma,
I never stated it was a great award. I could not give a flying flip if you think it is a great award.

What Nobel spelled out was that some politicians would preside over the award and it would not be limited to or conferred favorably upon any one people.

Looking at the list over any number of years shows a remarkable consistency in awarding politicians who advance liberal thoughts and causes. That is consistent with the philosophy and writing of Nobel if not the single sentence from his will creating the awards.

In fact the dual awarding of IPCC and Gore is completely in line with their actions the past 20 years.

If the award is a sham for you then ignore it.
Or go notify the people with some power over awarding the prizes of how they are not awarding it properly.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 03:39 PM

shrug, perhaps you can award it next year.

:confused:

not sure exactly what is to be gained by debating the flatly unchangeable.

Absolutely nothing. But then again how many debates in this forum actually changes anything? I'm just trying to communicate how I feel about this award. And well I sort of like debating :)

Ren

10-12-2007, 03:41 PM

Yeah, Arafat. That one still takes the cake.

They wanted to give it to Castro a few years back

Mavs Man

10-12-2007, 03:45 PM

They wanted to give it to Castro a few years back

:confused: For what?

jterrell

10-12-2007, 03:47 PM

Absolutely nothing. But then again how many debates in this forum actually changes anything? I'm just trying to communicate how I feel about this award. And well I sort of like debating :)

I am all for debating:) as well.

But this isn't a debatable topic.
The Award has been handed out.
It isn't going to be rescinded.

Again if you want to debate the many debatable aspects of Gore's movie or the IPCC thats one thing but what's to debate with an award that's already delivered.

In Europe they do a lot of things I like; but the one thing that annoys me most of their ability to whine ad nauseum... lol.

The committee likes Gore. Some don't. That's it.

The only real interesting aspect of this award to me is that Gore is not going to run for President because he figures Hillary is unbeatable.

I frankly do not consider Gore all that relevant to anything.
But I do hope we get in line with the rest of the world admitting a mature approach to our environment is needed.

We have limited supplies of water, fossil fuels, vegetation et al. I did not need to attend Harvard or Yale to know that.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 03:50 PM

And you don't think there is a connection between the Red Cross and promotion of peace. And as I said this was not the only thing Henry Dunant did. The first price was also split between Dunant and a leading french pacifist of the time. The funny thing is that the left wing pacifists in sweden are displeased with Gore getting the prize as well since he used to be a us vp and therefore one of the leaders of a country that has a lot of nuclear arms. Thats a different perspective though. :)

And you don't think there is a connection between reversing the impacts of global climate change and peace? Let's see, if a major superpower's country becomes unlivable or less desirable don'tcha think that might spur them to try to expand to more favorable territory that might currently belong to someone else?

Mavs Man

10-12-2007, 03:53 PM

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 03:55 PM

And you don't think there is a connection between reversing the impacts of global climate change and peace? Let's see, if a major superpower's country becomes unlivable or less desirable don'tcha think that might spur them to try to expand to more favorable territory that might currently belong to someone else?

You don't think that scenario is rather far fetched? Non of the current superpowers would be at any risk at all of becoming unlivable even considering Al Gore's alarmist scenarios. Which ironically the IPCC which shares the award with Gore doesn't agree with.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 03:59 PM

You don't think that scenario is rather far fetched? Non of the current superpowers would be at any risk at all of becoming unlivable even considering Al Gore's alarmist scenarios. Which ironically the IPCC which shares the award with Gore doesn't agree with.

So, the current superpowers are in locations that are desirable. Global climate change will shift climates. Making previously desirable locations less desirable and in some cases previously undesirable locations MORE desirable.

Yeah, if I've got the guns and the army, I'm just going to sit back and let some other place have all the good stuff.

Ren

10-12-2007, 04:02 PM

:confused: For what?

I'm not sure, but it's true.

I live in Norway and it's a well know fact here that "SV" one of the ruling parties has been campaigning for this for years now

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 04:03 PM

So, the current superpowers are in locations that are desirable. Global climate change will shift climates. Making previously desirable locations less desirable and in some cases previously undesirable locations MORE desirable.

Yeah, if I've got the guns and the army, I'm just going to sit back and let some other place have all the good stuff.

Your reasoning is very strange. If that was the case then todays superpowers would exist in the most desireble locations in the world. Otherwise they would have just occupied the more desirable land because they per definition has the strongest military in the world. Thats rediculous.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 04:08 PM

Your reasoning is very strange. If that was the case then todays superpowers would exist in the most desireble locations in the world. Otherwise they would have just occupied the more desirable land because the per definition has the strongest military in the world. Thats rediculous.

You don't think that the U.S., China, India, and the European Union are in particularly desirable locations? These are the areas that can support the most people and the most growth -- CURRENTLY. Climates change and countries will find that areas that once supported their populations can't do so anymore.

jterrell

10-12-2007, 04:13 PM

Your reasoning is very strange. If that was the case then todays superpowers would exist in the most desireble locations in the world. Otherwise they would have just occupied the more desirable land because they per definition has the strongest military in the world. Thats rediculous.

Were superpowers not checking each other that is exactly what would have happened.

see WW1 and WW2 and the cold war.

We start having issues with drinking water and watch the way the powerful react.

The only thing the US is in need of is oil and we have plainly shown we will kick butt to get that.

You Swedes hold out on us with something we need and lookout. :laugh1:

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 04:14 PM

You don't think that the U.S., China, India, and the European Union are in particularly desirable locations? These are the areas that can support the most people and the most growth -- CURRENTLY. Climates change and countries will find that areas that once supported their populations can't do so anymore.

No i think that a country's climate in modern sociaty has very little to do with its ability to grow. I do think these countries are in desirable locations but not because of their climate but because of other factors. Their climates are very different from each other as well I might add.

SweCowboy

10-12-2007, 04:15 PM

You Swedes hold out on us with something we need and lookout. :laugh1:

I think you're able to produce a sufficient amount of blond bimbos all by your self. :laugh1:

Big Dakota

10-12-2007, 04:20 PM

I knew that when a terrorist won it.

Bush won a Nobel?

AtlCB

10-12-2007, 04:36 PM

AtlCB

10-12-2007, 04:39 PM

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 05:11 PM

human rights - no
mediation of international conflicts - no
arms control - no

How does AGW fit into one of those categories?

Humanitarian efforts was clearly in that statement

ConcordCowboy

10-12-2007, 07:36 PM

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. GW has nothing to do with promoting world peace.

Boy you can say that again.

poopyhead

10-12-2007, 09:25 PM

:welcome:

I've actually been lurking for awhile, even before I officially made an account in 2005. Thanks.

Read the link for info:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbGHzZ6oMPxaFW9DxAAdH8iQ-BVQD8S7SGFO1

"Climate change is and will be a significant threat to our national security and in a larger sense to life on Earth as we know it to be," retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, former U.S. Army chief of staff, told a congressional panel last month.

Those like Sullivan who study the issues point particularly to the impact of drought and altered climate patterns on food and water supplies, leading to shortages that could spur huge, destabilizing migrations of people internationally.

Gore may not be directly promoting peace, but helping to prevent future conflicts that arise due to the social, economic, political, and environmental impacts of GW.

AbeBeta

10-12-2007, 10:22 PM

Gore may not be directly promoting peace, but helping to prevent future conflicts that arise due to the social, economic, political, and environmental impacts of GW.

No use arguing with this bunch. Nobel prize, American Academy of Sciences, et al. Folks on this board are smarter than 'em all.

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:20 AM

Can someone explain to me what Al Gore and the IPCC have done to promote peace????? Isn't there anyone else out there more deserving of this award???

The thinking goes that global warming will spur a series of "climate wars" as certain areas of the world become uninhabitable, and the people currently living there move into neighboring areas that are, and warfare results... indeed, some argue that what we're seeing in Africa these days is the first round of those "climate wars"...

But really, why do I get the feeling that it's your politics talking here?? You're just annoyed that ol' "liberal Al" is getting recognition around the world for doing some good...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:22 AM

Good...Gore deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on Global Warming.

Now they just need to get him to run for President.

Strike while the iron is hot...and Gore will never be hotter.

Won a Academy Award and a Noble Prize.

Come on Gore...get in there.

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/techchron/2007/05/03/gore500x400.jpg

I'm with you all the way, but it'll never happen...

Damn it... he'd destroy anybody the Republicans could put up against him... and once he won, he would certainly put the environment at the forefront of his agenda...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:24 AM

No he doesn't. His film is full of factual errors

The scientific community says you're full of it... so does a British court, in a ruling in the last coupla days...

and global warming has absolutely nothing to do with promoting peace.

Wrong again... do research the subject before running off at the mouth, unless you enjoy looking foolish...

And the committee who decide the award consists of 5 norwegian politicians.

And this is relevant how??

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:25 AM

Gore for President!?!?!?!

Guy has about as much charisma as a truck load full of lucky rabbits feet at a PITA convention.

NO THANKS.

Dubai Dubya has charisma, maybe it's time to try a new approach...

BTW, I think you meant a PETA convention, unless you were subtly insulting the Republican National Convention... LOL...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:33 AM

Then please explain to me the connction between global warming and world peace.

I did in a post a few minutes ago, but I don't mind repeating itself...

As global warming continues, it will render certain parts of the planet highly inhospitable for human habitation, if not completely uninhabitable... semi-arid areas now will become full-blown deserts, we'll lose considerable land along coasts across the world as the ice caps melt and the oceans rise... the people currently living there are then going to need to find someplace else to live... that will generally be someplace close by, and the people currently living in those places are not likely to quietly just give up their lands to a bunch of newcomers... war will result...

Some say the current brutal wars in Africa are round one of such a series of "climate wars"... I don't know if that's the case, to me there seems to have always been tribal wars in those regions, and they've always been brutal if not genocidal... but the logic behind the argument is still quite sound, I think...

I also think his film is alarmist and contains tons of factual errors and the whole hysteria about global warming is media created.

It is alarmist, it is intended to be alarmist... but these days, only Dubya and his buddies in the oil bidness are still clinging to the RIDICULOUS notion that global warming is not a real problem... finally, it's the SCIENTISTS who created the "hysteria", and you really ought to listen to them...

I know that where I live in the Shenandoah Valley, snowstorms in the winter are now quite rare, and rarely amount to more the 2-3 inches, 6 inches tops... a decade ago, I can remember winters where we had 3 or 4 snowfalls of a foot or more... our winters ARE noticeably warmer as the years go along, and this year is again forecast to be warmer and drier than normal (which suits me just fine, since I have to drive 50 miles each way to work)...

The climate in this neck of the woods IS changing, with warmer winters and less precipitation throughout the year than I was used to not too long ago...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:36 AM

I see little benefit of him entering the race this late. Hillary has established herself as the frontrunner by several miles.

If he entered, he'd become the instant frontrunner... I truly believe that Hillary's winning this thing by default right now, and only the truly liberal wing of the Democratic party is excited at the prospect of her as the party's candidate...

He'd be stuck fighting for second with Obama, and at this point he seems more content fighting a more elevated battle in AGW rather than being bogged down in base politics once again. And with speaking engagements, a book, and a movie he's making plenty of money to survive, much more than he would as president or vp.

I have read that his reluctance to enter this race is more a reflection of his complete contempt for the political process any more, a contempt that is easy to understand if you look at it from his perspective... I think he had plenty of money before he conceived the idea of "An Inconvenient Truth"...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:39 AM

Oh I'm so sorry I miss spelled a few words.

Chuckle... if you're gonna go off on literary matters, it does seem that you probably ought to try to make your criticisms literate... :D

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:40 AM

The Dems would love for him to run...he's popular now with his Oscar and Nobel PEACE prize.

That would be nice thing to watch...the former VP going after the former First Lady...

That's never happened before.:D

You think Dubya will ever win an Oscar, Emmy or Nobel Prize??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... sometimes, I crack myself up...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:41 AM

The Nobel Peace prize used to mean something. BUT for about 30 years now it means nothing. Just another political nothing voted by politicians.

I knew YOU'D be pissed at Gore winning it... ROTFLMAO...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:45 AM

shrug, perhaps you can award it next year.

:confused:

not sure exactly what is to be gained by debating the flatly unchangeable.

The vast majority of those criticizing this award are ardent conservatives, likely neocons, who see Gore's winning as a slap in the face of the Putz In Chief... they know their boy is a lightweight, and once he leaves office, will disappear from the world stage, to be seen only at the funerals of ex-Presidents... meanwhile, Gore in defeat has done a lot of good in the world, and it galls them that he's getting recognized for his work...

IOW, they know that Gore is twice the man Dubya will ever be, and that knowledge PISSES THEM OFF... their snarling is music to my ears, but bittersweet at the same time, as I contemplate what this nation might look like today if the right man had won in 2000...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:54 AM

You don't think that scenario is rather far fetched?

If global warming is real, not only is it not far-fetched, it's inevitable...

Non of the current superpowers would be at any risk at all of becoming unlivable

Well, that's the stupidest argument I've read on this board to date... what, you think if the "current superpowers" are not at war, then there is no war??

What about the rest of the so-called "Third World"?? If the ice caps melt, and the seas rise, islands in the Pacific will become uninhabitable, and the folks living there will jump in their boats looking for somewhere else to live... the places they find are likely to already be inhabited, and those folks are not likely to welcome these newcomers with open arms...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:56 AM

I think you're able to produce a sufficient amount of blond bimbos all by your self. :laugh1:

There is no such thing as "a sufficient amount of blond bimbos"... at least, not until I have at least 2 or 3 for my very own... :D

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:57 AM

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. GW has nothing to do with promoting world peace.

And he hates science with a passion... I guess all that's left for him is to win the award for Literature... LOL...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 12:59 AM

Gore may not be directly promoting peace, but helping to prevent future conflicts that arise due to the social, economic, political, and environmental impacts of GW.

"Those like Sullivan who study the issues point particularly to the impact of drought and altered climate patterns on food and water supplies, leading to shortages that could spur huge, destabilizing migrations of people internationally. "

That's the crux of my argument, stated better than I could...

You're an uncommonly smart poopyhead...

AtlCB

10-13-2007, 01:00 AM

The thinking goes that global warming will spur a series of "climate wars" as certain areas of the world become uninhabitable, and the people currently living there move into neighboring areas that are, and warfare results... indeed, some argue that what we're seeing in Africa these days is the first round of those "climate wars"...
That is a huge stretch.

But really, why do I get the feeling that it's your politics talking here?? You're just annoyed that ol' "liberal Al" is getting recognition around the world for doing some good...
Do you think your politics may be causing you to defend Al Gore with that ridiculous statement? Whether or not you believe Al Gore is doing some good, you haven't convinced me that his work has anything to do with promoting peace.

AtlCB

10-13-2007, 01:03 AM

The vast majority of those criticizing this award are ardent conservatives, likely neocons, who see Gore's winning as a slap in the face of the Putz In Chief... they know their boy is a lightweight, and once he leaves office, will disappear from the world stage, to be seen only at the funerals of ex-Presidents... meanwhile, Gore in defeat has done a lot of good in the world, and it galls them that he's getting recognized for his work...

IOW, they know that Gore is twice the man Dubya will ever be, and that knowledge PISSES THEM OFF... their snarling is music to my ears, but bittersweet at the same time, as I contemplate what this nation might look like today if the right man had won in 2000...

Everything doesn't revolve around defending Bush. I started the thread and I think Bush has done a horrible job as president.

silverbear

10-13-2007, 01:05 AM

That is a huge stretch.

No, it's not...

Do you think your politics may be causing you to defend Al Gore with that ridiculous statement?

No sir, I've been an ardent environmentalist since LONG before I ever heard of Al Gore...

Whether or not you believe Al Gore is doing some good, you haven't convinced me that his work has anything to do with promoting peace.

I never figured I would... anybody who still doesn't believe that global warming is a real and insidious problem is an ostrich... you can't teach an ostrich ANYTHING...

It's enough for me that the vast majority of the rest of the world considers your take on things foolish, if not idiotic... my comments were actually intended for THINKING people who might have been wondering how Al Gore's work on the environment qualified him for a Nobel Peace Prize... it is at first take a legitimate question, for which I provided the answer...

I'm quite sure that was the Nobel committee's rationale for awarding Gore that prize...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 01:07 AM

Everything doesn't revolve around defending Bush. I started the thread and I think Bush has done a horrible job as president.

Note the use of the phrase "vast majority" at the outset of my post...

But might I inquire as to whether or not you VOTED for that fool?? Lots of folks who did now share your opinion of the job he's done as President, and presumably deeply regret their vote(s)...

AtlCB

10-13-2007, 01:11 AM

No, it's not...

No sir, I've been an ardent environmentalist since LONG before I ever heard of Al Gore...

I never figured I would... anybody who still doesn't believe that global warming is a real and insidious problem is an ostrich... you can't teach an ostrich ANYTHING...

It's enough for me that the vast majority of the rest of the world considers your take on things foolish, if not idiotic... my comments were actually intended for THINKING people who might have been wondering how Al Gore's work on the environment qualified him for a Nobel Peace Prize... it is at first take a legitimate question, for which I provided the answer...

I'm quite sure that was the Nobel committee's rationale for awarding Gore that prize...
I also see you as an ostrich making foolish and idiotic conclusions on science that people continue to find massive holes in.

AtlCB

10-13-2007, 01:13 AM

Note the use of the phrase "vast majority" at the outset of my post...

But might I inquire as to whether or not you VOTED for that fool?? Lots of folks who did now share your opinion of the job he's done as President, and presumably deeply regret their vote(s)...No. I typically vote third party - usually Libertarian.

poopyhead

10-13-2007, 01:31 AM

I also see you as an ostrich making foolish and idiotic conclusions on science that people continue to find massive holes in.

Science is constantly critiqued and undergoes stringent peer-review. While never perfect, the data clearly suggests an acceleration of GW. Regardless of who champions the cause, the purpose of the Peace Prize being awarded to Gore isn't about liberals, dems, the left, or even Gore himself. It is about what will happen to us if nothing is done about it. It is a matter of national security. The unrest stemming from climate change on our food and water supplies is going to be a breeding ground for terrorists.

This goes back to "intelligent design" vs. Darwinian evolution. While the evidence may not 100% perfectly fit the theory of evolution, it's the best we have so far of explaining the data, while "intelligent design" is purely religious.

There are no "massive holes" in the science, of which you allude to.

silverbear

10-13-2007, 02:20 AM

I also see you as an ostrich making foolish and idiotic conclusions on science that people continue to find massive holes in.

From what I've seen, every credible SCIENTIFIC source accepts global warming as real... beyond that, it's asinine for you to make assumptions about what I base my conclusions on, inasmuch as the arguments behind global warming support things I've seen with my own eyes... IOW, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE has as much to do with my conclusions as the opinions of the experts...

The "people" you cite seem to all have agendas that require them to dispute scientific fact... I put them on a par with those folks who still dispute evolution, or those who argue that the Holocaust never happened, which is to say I consider them fools...

silverbear

10-13-2007, 02:21 AM

No. I typically vote third party - usually Libertarian.

OK, thanks for the response... then you are apparently not part of the "vast majority" to which I referred...

Ben_n_austin

10-13-2007, 02:46 AM

The vast majority of those criticizing this award are ardent conservatives, likely neocons, who see Gore's winning as a slap in the face of the Putz In Chief... they know their boy is a lightweight, and once he leaves office, will disappear from the world stage, to be seen only at the funerals of ex-Presidents... meanwhile, Gore in defeat has done a lot of good in the world, and it galls them that he's getting recognized for his work...

IOW, they know that Gore is twice the man Dubya will ever be, and that knowledge PISSES THEM OFF... their snarling is music to my ears, but bittersweet at the same time, as I contemplate what this nation might look like today if the right man had won in 2000...

Yeah--I was glad to see Al Gore win this. He deserves it.

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 10:19 AM

The "people" you cite seem to all have agendas that require them to dispute scientific fact... I put them on a par with those folks who still dispute evolution, or those who argue that the Holocaust never happened, which is to say I consider them fools...

Ironically, or perhaps not surprisingly, Roy Spencer, a major global climate change critic, also is an evolution critic who supports the Intelligent Design perspective.

AtlCB

10-13-2007, 11:12 AM

From what I've seen, every credible SCIENTIFIC source accepts global warming as real... beyond that, it's asinine for you to make assumptions about what I base my conclusions on, inasmuch as the arguments behind global warming support things I've seen with my own eyes... IOW, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE has as much to do with my conclusions as the opinions of the experts...

The "people" you cite seem to all have agendas that require them to dispute scientific fact... I put them on a par with those folks who still dispute evolution, or those who argue that the Holocaust never happened, which is to say I consider them fools...

If you are for AGW, it is asinine for anyone to make assumptions about what you base your conclusions on. The credible scientists who no agenda support the AGW theory.

If you are against AGW, it is ok to make assumptions about what you base your conclusions on. Only scientists with an agenda do not support the AGW theory.

Ok, got it.

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 11:43 AM

I understand how you could think that climate shift could cause wars and hostile takeovers of more desirable land by world superpowers...

That said, how does GW education necessarily prevent that?

First off, you have to operate on the assumption that GW will actually cause a climate shift eventually.

Then you have to believe that Gore and company have somehow magically changed what we all know WILL happen if climate shifts drastically. No amount of education of what could happen if/when climate shifts will stop more powerful nations/people who are threatened with losing their land from seeking more desirable land. It's human instinct, and that takes over political correctness when your livelihood is threatened.

Secondly, what have Gore and company done specifically to change GW? Is there any scientific evidence that shows what they have done that is slowing down GW? Can that even happen? Seems to me like Gore and co. would like everyone to think that we are so far behind on GW that it could never be fixed.

It just seems bizarre to me to award a peace prize to someone for a theory that may or may not be true, for educating people about something that may or may not happen, for warning people about land takeovers that may or may not happen and probably cannot be prevented.

Couldn't you wait until you see if their campaign actually has any results or effect before awarding this?

Or is it just an award to give more positive PR...? sounds like some kind of endorsement... "Global Warming theory, now endorsed by Nobel."

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 12:02 PM

It just seems bizarre to me to award a peace prize to someone for a theory that may or may not be true, for educating people about something that may or may not happen, for warning people about land takeovers that may or may not happen and probably cannot be prevented.

You can check thread after thread in this forum that shows pretty clearly that nearly every major scientific organization supports the theory.

And as noted again and again, the Peace prize is and has pretty much always been an award that goes for humanitarian efforts. Mother Theresa, Red Cross, etc. etc. The focus does not have to be specifically on Peace defined as preventing or ending war.

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 12:25 PM

You can check thread after thread in this forum that shows pretty clearly that nearly every major scientific organization supports the theory.

And as noted again and again, the Peace prize is and has pretty much always been an award that goes for humanitarian efforts. Mother Theresa, Red Cross, etc. etc. The focus does not have to be specifically on Peace defined as preventing or ending war.

I understand that ab...

I don't care who supports the theory. As of now it is just that... a theory.

We're giving out supposedly prestigious awards for hypotheticals??

poopyhead

10-13-2007, 01:30 PM

I understand that ab...

I don't care who supports the theory. As of now it is just that... a theory.

We're giving out supposedly prestigious awards for hypotheticals??

Theory is much more than just a random guess. The vast majority of the data suggests the acceleration of GW. It's very hard to refute that body of evidence. Don't take theories lightly (i.e theory of evolution, big bang theory, etc.)

Whether or not Gore did anything to actually help the issue is another matter altogether. Certainly, there are scientists who actually did the research on GW deserving most of the credit. However, it seems the purpose of the Prize was to legitimize the seriousness of GW and its impact on our future security because GW is still being downplayed by the same people trying to push intelligent design or refute big bang on a religious basis.

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 01:34 PM

I understand that ab...

I don't care who supports the theory. As of now it is just that... a theory.

We're giving out supposedly prestigious awards for hypotheticals??

I think you don't understand what a Theory is.

A scientific theory is an explanation established through extensive scientific investigation.

A hypothesis reflects a hypothetical. 1000s of supported tests of hypothesis establish a claim as theory.

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 01:38 PM

Theory is much more than just a random guess. The vast majority of the data suggests the acceleration of GW. It's very hard to refute that body of evidence. Don't take theories lightly (i.e theory of evolution, big bang theory, etc.) Well I don't place too much importance in those particular theories... I certainly don't think anyone should win a Nobel PEACE prize for coming up with the big bang theory.

Theories are typically attached to scientific experiments. Sounds like something for which you could get a Nobel Prize for Science, but a Peace Prize? for a theory?

However, it seems the purpose of the Prize was to legitimize the seriousness of GW and its impact on our future security ... My point exactly. This seems to have been done in order to place GW in a more positive light from a PR perspective. Sounds kind of disingenuous to me.

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 01:41 PM

I think you don't understand what a Theory is.

A scientific theory is an explanation established through extensive scientific investigation.

A hypothesis reflects a hypothetical. 1000s of supported tests of hypothesis establish a claim as theory.

Spare me the insulting tone. I understand perfectly what a theory is.

The fact remains hypotheses were tested to come up with a theory that is still subject to that type of testing. Nothing has been 100% determined as fact. And we're giving out a PEACE prize for that?

poopyhead

10-13-2007, 01:53 PM

Spare me the insulting tone. I understand perfectly what a theory is.

The fact remains hypotheses were tested to come up with a theory that is still subject to that type of testing. Nothing has been 100% determined as fact. And we're giving out a PEACE prize for that?

Of course, theories will never be 100% proven. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, but rather a fact. However, that should not prevent us from realizing the great harm GW will cause. Bush's War on Terror should also include War on GW. All the terrorists that will spring up from the conflicts over shrinking food and water supplies caused by climate change will be no laughing matter.

By bringing up GW, Gore is trying to stem future terrorism, just like Bush's invasion into Iraq to hunt for WMDs to prevent future terrorist attacks. Only thing is Gore rationale is based on moutains of credible scientific data, while Bush went in with faulty intelligence.

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 02:10 PM

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 05:23 PM

Nearly every major scientific organization has issued statements that they believe the bulk of the research clearly supports the theory. And we all know that scientists have never been wrong.

:rolleyes:

Of course, theories will never be 100% proven. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, but rather a fact. However, that should not prevent us from realizing the great harm GW will cause. Bush's War on Terror should also include War on GW. All the terrorists that will spring up from the conflicts over shrinking food and water supplies caused by climate change will be no laughing matter. Again, you don't understand science -- no scientist would EVER claim a 100% determination of fact. It is all about beyond a reasonable doubt -- and the experts believe this has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.blah blah blah. You guys keep on debating the semantics and ignore the main point I was trying to make. The award has turned into a PR ploy.

By bringing up GW, Gore is trying to stem future terrorism, just like Bush's invasion into Iraq to hunt for WMDs to prevent future terrorist attacks. Only thing is Gore rationale is based on moutains of credible scientific data, while Bush went in with faulty intelligence.Wow that's a stretch.

But for the sake of argument, how do you know that Gore's "intelligence" isn't faulty? Cause a bunch of scientists say so?

poopyhead

10-13-2007, 05:55 PM

Wow that's a stretch.

But for the sake of argument, how do you know that Gore's "intelligence" isn't faulty? Cause a bunch of scientists say so?

For the sake of argument, the science couldn't be any worse than Bush's so-called intelligence as a basis for the invasion. As for the science, maybe you should go read up on the scientific journals where they openly state their hypothesis and present evidence for and against them.

Don't get science and religion mixed up. Science doesn't believe. Scientists don't just make up conclusions without any supporting evidence, especially when other scientists can easily counter them if enough evidence supports the contrary.

These are well-established, respected scientists that have drawn conclusions from all the data they have gathered. They presented their data, methods used to obtain said data, and their interpretation of them. Majority of the scientific community agrees.

You should hold these "bunch of scientists" with higher regard.

peplaw06

10-13-2007, 07:39 PM

For the sake of argument, the science couldn't be any worse than Bush's so-called intelligence as a basis for the invasion. That intelligence was put in front of both the house and senate. They voted to take action.

As for the science, maybe you should go read up on the scientific journals where they openly state their hypothesis and present evidence for and against them.

Don't get science and religion mixed up. Science doesn't believe. Scientists don't just make up conclusions without any supporting evidence, especially when other scientists can easily counter them if enough evidence supports the contrary. The arrogance is just dripping off of your words. You might want to go read the forum rules re: religion. Just sayin.

These are well-established, respected scientists that have drawn conclusions from all the data they have gathered. They presented their data, methods used to obtain said data, and their interpretation of them. Majority of the scientific community agrees.

You should hold these "bunch of scientists" with higher regard. Why should I? There are plenty of holes in many of the theories I'm sure you hold dear to your heart.

A bunch of scientists used to think the world was flat.

But you keep on thinking that scientists can never be wrong.... don't let me stop you.

poopyhead

10-13-2007, 11:08 PM

That intelligence was put in front of both the house and senate. They voted to take action.

Right. If such faulty intelligence was enough to take action, then certainly the evidence for GW has exceeded that standard.

The arrogance is just dripping off of your words. You might want to go read the forum rules re: religion. Just sayin.

Why should I? There are plenty of holes in many of the theories I'm sure you hold dear to your heart.

A bunch of scientists used to think the world was flat.

But you keep on thinking that scientists can never be wrong.... don't let me stop you.

There are mechanisms in place to make sure that Science isn't wrong for too long. Currently, GW is supported by the vast amount of research being performed.

If you want to be anti-science, that's your choice, but the holes to the currently accepted theories are minor compared to how well these theories are able to explain the data. Since there are no competing theories that can fit the data better, these are what we have left currently.

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 11:40 PM

And we all know that scientists have never been wrong.

Brilliant logic. Let's sit on our butts and not do anything. Because once in a while scientists are wrong.

AbeBeta

10-13-2007, 11:41 PM

blah blah blah. You guys keep on debating the semantics and ignore the main point I was trying to make. The award has turned into a PR ploy.

Yeah, the Nobel freaking Prize needs PR. Right.

Here's the real explanation. This work is Internationally respected despite the fact that a handful of idiot conservatives in the U.S. dispute it.

silverbear

10-14-2007, 01:17 AM

I understand that ab...

I don't care who supports the theory. As of now it is just that... a theory.

We're giving out supposedly prestigious awards for hypotheticals??

It would seem the Nobel Committee doesn't consider it a "hypothetical"...

They probably don't think the world is flat, either...

Ben_n_austin

10-14-2007, 04:17 AM

It would seem the Nobel Committee doesn't consider it a "hypothetical"...

They probably don't think the world is flat, either...

... or hollow. ;)

Nice try, peplaw. But you're not making a very good argument against science.

You might want to brush up on those logic skills before you take the LSAT.

There are quite a few premises that amount to a strong inductive argument that can be deduced in favor of GW.

Ben_n_austin

10-14-2007, 04:25 AM

The arrogance is just dripping off of your words. You might want to go read the forum rules re: religion. Just sayin.

Quit your whining. He's talking about science and how it takes an evolutionary perspective as opposed to a creationism perspective.

For a pre-law student, you don't seem to be able to make the recognitions and kinds of distinctions that I'd want a lawyer working for me making.

zrinkill

10-14-2007, 07:27 AM

Yeah, the Nobel freaking Prize needs PR. Right.

http://www.nndb.com/people/403/000022337/arafat020925.jpg

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 10:16 AM

Brilliant logic. Let's sit on our butts and not do anything. Because once in a while scientists are wrong.When did I say that? Come on ab, you're smart enough to be able to follow this without making up arguments.

Yeah, the Nobel freaking Prize needs PR. Right.

Here's the real explanation. This work is Internationally respected despite the fact that a handful of idiot conservatives in the U.S. dispute it.I didn't say the NOBEL PRIZE needs PR. Did you get a lil tipsy before posting tonight??

It would seem the Nobel Committee doesn't consider it a "hypothetical"... Well by god... I guess I'm convinced.

They probably don't think the world is flat, either... Not anymore.

... or hollow. ;)

Nice try, peplaw. But you're not making a very good argument against science.I'm not trying to argue against science. I'm arguing that the Nobel Prize is being used to develop positive PR for GW. Simple. Getting it yet?

You might want to brush up on those logic skills before you take the LSAT.I'm so glad you're concerned, but I took the LSAT 5 years ago.

There are quite a few premises that amount to a strong inductive argument that can be deduced in favor of GW. Great... let's give out a Nobel PEACE prize because there are quite a few premises that amount to a strong inductive argument that can be deduced in favor of GW.

What results have we seen from Gore's campaign that can be construed as humanitarian, furthering the cause for peace, etc.?? As of now Gore's campaign is "speaking in hypotheticals." If you want to say he's furthered a humanitarian cause because he's been raising awareness as to what we should do if there's a climate shift, then you're speaking purely hypothetically.

If you want to give him a nobel prize for a theory... then a prize for science seems more apropos.

Quit your whining. He's talking about science and how it takes an evolutionary perspective as opposed to a creationism perspective.Oh please.

This sentence is a clear insult to religion in the context of his argument...

Scientists don't just make up conclusions without any supporting evidence, especially when other scientists can easily counter them if enough evidence supports the contrary.

For a pre-law student, you don't seem to be able to make the recognitions and kinds of distinctions that I'd want a lawyer working for me making.Well apparently you have made some kind of recognition or distinction in your mind that leads you to believe that I am a pre-law student. And that's wrong. So forgive me if I don't lose sleep over your analysis of MY recognitions and distinctions.

BTW... THIS is why I'm hesitant to get into any thread in the Political Zone. Inevitably, someone like YOU enters a healthy debate and starts slinging personal insults at someone. And AGS, you are often times the chief offender.

Ben_n_austin

10-14-2007, 10:51 AM

Someone doesn't like Science. And someone is taking up for GW... Bush.

There was no insult to religion unless you're offended by the fact that science tends to look through a non-religious scope. If you're offended by that, then you have your faith blinders on.

That's all that was said. No one insulted religion. The topic is science. And it's true that they don't mix in any useful manner.

Ben_n_austin

10-14-2007, 10:58 AM

The world will be a much more "peaceful" place if the ozone is intact.

Just think about how hostile the environment could become. This is about peace--peace on earth.

It's the current era.

We're not driving horses and buggies anymore.;)

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 11:05 AM

I didn't say the NOBEL PRIZE needs PR. Did you get a lil tipsy before posting tonight??

Then how exactly is the award a PR ploy?

Seriously, you need to make that point to me b/c we all know the people giving the award don't need the PR.

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 11:20 AM

Someone doesn't like Science. And someone is taking up for GW... Bush.:lmao:

Good lord. This is the height of ridiculousness. You seem to have the attention span of a Chihuahua on speed.

And I'd be surprised if you passed the LSAT, given your apparent ability to reason.Worst. Insult. Ever. Are you posting from the tailgate? There was no insult to religion unless you're offended by the fact that science tends to look through a non-religious scope. If you're offended by that, then you have your faith blinders on.

That's all that was said. No one insulted religion. The topic is science. And it's true that they don't mix in any useful manner.Go read the whole post. It's a clear shot to religion. It can't be any clearer. He's talking about the irrationality of anyone NOT a scientist who believes in something different. I'm done holding your hand.

Then how exactly is the award a PR ploy?

Seriously, you need to make that point to me b/c we all know the people giving the award don't need the PR.
I've stated numerous times how it seems to be a PR ploy. Think about it ab. I just told you it's not for positive PR for the Nobel Prize. Who else can this possibly be a positive PR-event for?

SweCowboy

10-14-2007, 11:42 AM

It would seem the Nobel Committee doesn't consider it a "hypothetical"...

They probably don't think the world is flat, either...

No but then again the Nobel committee for the peace prize consists of five norwegian politicians. One of whom is actively trying to give the peace prize to Fidel Castro. Not exactly the people I would like to decide what is scientifically correct or not. And as I have said earlier this award has nothing what so ever to do about science. And that the world isn't flat is scientifically proven, something AGW is far from. And in response to all the people whose main argument for AGW is who else believe in it and how many who does. Science isn’t a popularity contest or democratic, nature does not give a damn about who believes in what theory.

Ben_n_austin

10-14-2007, 12:01 PM

SweCowboy

10-14-2007, 12:17 PM

Interesting. :)

You don't agree? :D

poopyhead

10-14-2007, 12:23 PM

Worst. Insult. Ever. Are you posting from the tailgate? Go read the whole post. It's a clear shot to religion. It can't be any clearer. He's talking about the irrationality of anyone NOT a scientist who believes in something different. I'm done holding your hand.

No, it is about not backing up your assertions with evidence and data. Scientists researching GW has provided ample of both. If people are going to counter, it also needs to be backed-up with sufficient evidence, not what you "believe" in.

poopyhead

10-14-2007, 12:31 PM

No but then again the Nobel committee for the peace prize consists of five norwegian politicians. One of whom is actively trying to give the peace prize to Fidel Castro. Not exactly the people I would like to decide what is scientifically correct or not. And as I have said earlier this award has nothing what so ever to do about science. And that the world isn't flat is scientifically proven, something AGW is far from. And in response to all the people whose main argument for AGW is who else believe in it and how many who does. Science isn’t a popularity contest or democratic, nature does not give a damn about who believes in what theory.

The Nobel committee never has determined what is scientifically correct or not. That is up to stringent peer-review. The Nobel is awarded to what they consider are significant achievements. They already assume the scientific work is technically-sound.

The concept of GW may not be as rock-solid as "world isn't flat," but the evidence and the data suggests that the theory is solid. Just because something isn't 100% doesn't mean it's wrong, especially when there are no counter theories to explain the observations.

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 12:46 PM

No, it is about not backing up your assertions with evidence and data. Scientists researching GW has provided ample of both. If people are going to counter, it also needs to be backed-up with sufficient evidence, not what you "believe" in.

Semantics again. Are you trying to tell me you don't think that those who "believe" in something without backing it up with sufficient evidence are irrational? Of course you're not. You are implying it even if you're not saying it in so many words.

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 12:53 PM

I've stated numerous times how it seems to be a PR ploy. Think about it ab. I just told you it's not for positive PR for the Nobel Prize. Who else can this possibly be a positive PR-event for?

Actually, you haven't address how the Nobel committee is in any manner involved in PR.

If your argument is that there is some sort of liberal plot to get a half a nobel prize for Al Gore then I REALLY feel sorry for anyone you have to represent in court. Do you find that such ridiculous logic works with juries?

poopyhead

10-14-2007, 12:55 PM

Semantics again. Are you trying to tell me you don't think that those who in something without backing it up with are irrational? Of course you're not. You are implying it even if you're not saying it in so many words.

Then, where's your case? You believe someone is guilty or you prove someone is guilty. We all believe what we want, but to make assertions requires something to validate them. GW has been validated to an acceptable degree, whether you believe that or not.

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 12:59 PM

The Nobel committee never has determined what is scientifically correct or not. That is up to stringent peer-review. The Nobel is awarded to what they consider are significant achievements. They already assume the scientific work is technically-sound.

The concept of GW may not be as rock-solid as "world isn't flat," but the evidence and the data suggests that the theory is solid. Just because something isn't 100% doesn't mean it's wrong, especially when there are no counter theories to explain the observations.

The amazing thing here is that the folks who argue for 100% proof fail to recognize that the only way anyone could ever achieve any level of scientific proof remotely like that on the issue would be to sit back and observe for another 100-200 years. So all that sort of "argument" does is call for no action at all.

God forbid folks like pep would have to give up their SUVs and turn out the lights when they leave the room.

SweCowboy

10-14-2007, 01:00 PM

SweCowboy

10-14-2007, 01:05 PM

The amazing thing here is that the folks who argue for 100% proof fail to recognize that the only way anyone could ever achieve any level of scientific proof remotely like that on the issue would be to sit back and observe for another 100-200 years. So all that sort of "argument" does is call for no action at all.

God forbid folks like pep would have to give up their SUVs and turn out the lights when they leave the room.

Thats just the problem. People aren't arguing the details I really don't think there is much evidence of AGW at all. Its all more or less simulated data and circumstantial evidence. And I used a lot of simulation in my masters thesis and I know better then to trust simulated data the way the AGW crowd is doing.

Your primary argument is that a lot of people believe in AGW which is hardly a valid scientifc method.

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 01:33 PM

Actually, you haven't address how the Nobel committee is in any manner involved in PR.

If your argument is that there is some sort of liberal plot to get a half a nobel prize for Al Gore then I REALLY feel sorry for anyone you have to represent in court. Do you find that such ridiculous logic works with juries?Don't be so naive ab. Of course the Nobel committee is trying to gain positive PR for GW theory. That's all these so-called awards are for. Why do you think everyone who has ever won a Nobel Prize adds it to the front of their name. "Introducing Nobel Prize winner... Al Gore."

But of course you know that. You just don't want to admit it.

I've never said there was some "liberal plot." But the committee definitely believes in GW though, or they would never have given them the award.

Then, where's your case? You believe someone is guilty or you prove someone is guilty. We all believe what we want, but to make assertions requires something to validate them. GW has been validated to an acceptable degree, whether you believe that or not.An acceptable degree to YOU. Not me. Sorry.

I'm not getting into the religious debates. It's prohibited by the forum rules, and I've gone into it before, and had the posts deleted. It's not like it would do any good... you would simply continue to insult my rationality, or lack thereof.

The amazing thing here is that the folks who argue for 100% proof fail to recognize that the only way anyone could ever achieve any level of scientific proof remotely like that on the issue would be to sit back and observe for another 100-200 years. So all that sort of "argument" does is call for no action at all.

God forbid folks like pep would have to give up their SUVs and turn out the lights when they leave the room. 1) Don't have an SUV... And 2) when the highest profile GW theory proponent -- and now Nobel Prize winner -- stops consuming enough energy to sustain a 3rd world country, then let me know. Maybe then you can throw stones at MY energy consumption, even though you have zero idea what that is.

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 01:38 PM

Don't be so naive ab. Of course the Nobel committee is trying to gain positive PR for GW theory. That's all these so-called awards are for. Why do you think everyone who has ever won a Nobel Prize adds it to the front of their name. "Introducing Nobel Prize winner... Al Gore."

The theory doesn't need positive PR since it is pretty much accepted all over the world. Nobody's mind is going to change because Gore won half a Nobel Prize for his work. Of course you know that. You just don't want to admit it.

I've never said there was some "liberal plot." But the committee definitely believes in GW though, or they would never have given them the award.

As does the American Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and pretty much every big time scientific organization in the world.

An acceptable degree to YOU. Not me. Sorry.

Because your scientific background obviously exceeds those of the members of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world, I assume.

The ignorant have truly inherited the earth.

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 01:40 PM

Your primary argument is that a lot of people believe in AGW which is hardly a valid scientifc method.

That's just plain wrong -- the reason why the AAAS, NRC, et al. have issued statements endorsing the theory is because of the breadth and depth of scientific evidence that supports the theory. This isn't an issue of faith, it is an issue of widespread scientific support.

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 02:21 PM

The theory doesn't need positive PR since it is pretty much accepted all over the world. Nobody's mind is going to change because Gore won half a Nobel Prize for his work. Of course you know that. You just don't want to admit it.Not everyone is as educated as you or me. A Nobel Prize is widely regarded as a prestigious award. People who are less discerning may well give more credence to GW theory because of this.

As does the American Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and pretty much every big time scientific organization in the world. I don't see what that has anything to do with the point at hand.

Because your scientific background obviously exceeds those of the members of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world, I assume. Again... the most prestigious scientific societies in the world have been wrong before. Just because you happen to believe in it and happen to feel personally invested in it being true, doesn't mean it is so.

The ignorant have truly inherited the earth.More shots at the religious?? I probably shouldn't be surprised.

AbeBeta

10-14-2007, 09:35 PM

Not everyone is as educated as you or me. A Nobel Prize is widely regarded as a prestigious award. People who are less discerning may well give more credence to GW theory because of this.

Gee, they'd give credence b/c of the Nobel prize but not the prestigious scientific organizations who have taken the extraordinary act of issuing statements supporting the theory?

Frankly the less discerning people in this case seem like they'd ignore ANY evidence and shout from the hilltops "PR stunt"

peplaw06

10-14-2007, 09:53 PM

Gee, they'd give credence b/c of the Nobel prize but not the prestigious scientific organizations who have taken the extraordinary act of issuing statements supporting the theory?
Yeah how many people have even heard of the American Academy of Sciences or the National Research Counsel?? Guarantee it's not near as many as have heard of the Nobel Prize.

peplaw06

10-15-2007, 10:39 AM

Just thought I'd throw this in there. On topic and published this morning.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12160

Special Report
Al's Ignoble Nobel

By Ben Stein (editor@spectator.org)
Published 10/15/2007 12:08:45 AM

Let's make this really, really simple. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee gave the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and about 3,300 UN bureaucrats and professors who worked on the chi-chi, politically correct, ultra-hip topic of global warming. As far as I know, none of the 3,300 ever had to put his or her life on the line. Mostly, they worked in air-conditioned classrooms and labs and were well paid. Al Gore has made an enormous business of his opposition to the oil companies. He has made literally tens of millions from his crusade (far, far more than any oil company executive presently working ).

I have an idea of who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize: the American combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families. They have put up more to stop terrorism, save lives, bring peace to an embattled part of the world, and offer hope to innocent civilians in a large region of the world than Al Gore and his scientists could even imagine.

Your humble servant spent last Tuesday at the amputee ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I think the Nobel Committee might have wanted -- instead of wading in with their big feet into a political campaign -- to honor the men and women who have volunteered to be without their natural limbs for the rest of their lives for the children of Iraq and Afghanistan -- and for all of the peace and freedom loving people of the world.

To think of Al Gore and his 20,000 square-foot home, and his glib comments on late night talk shows, and his private jets, and then to think of the grunt getting his legs blown off and lying in a hospital bed with ten tubes in him -- and then to think one gets the Nobel Peace Prize and one is ignored by everyone except his friends and his family -- well, it just sort of makes me want to throw up.

Oh, wait. Didn't Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter get that prize, too? Hey, is there maybe a pattern here?

AbeBeta

10-15-2007, 11:36 AM

Just thought I'd throw this in there. On topic and published this morning.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12160

Oh boy, a game show host who is a noted conservative has an opinion!

Mavs Man

10-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Bueller... Bueller...

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :D

peplaw06

10-15-2007, 12:42 PM

Oh boy, a game show host who is a noted conservative has an opinion!Ben Stein is one of the smartest and most grounded-in-reality celebrity commentators out there.

Oh BTW, he's also an economist, lawyer and a pretty damn good writer.

But of course you immediately disregard his opinion because he's conservative.

AbeBeta

10-15-2007, 01:16 PM

Ben Stein is one of the smartest and most grounded-in-reality celebrity commentators out there.

Oh BTW, he's also an economist, lawyer and a pretty damn good writer.

But of course you immediately disregard his opinion because he's conservative.

No, I disregard his opinion because it isn't relevant to the science.

peplaw06

10-15-2007, 01:45 PM

No, I disregard his opinion because it isn't relevant to the science.Who said this particular opinion presented is relevant to the science?? This isn't even about the science. It's about the Nobel prize. It's completely relevant in that regard.

Ben_n_austin

10-16-2007, 03:02 PM

peplaw06

10-16-2007, 04:39 PM

Meaning: He's a great propagandist. ;)That and he happens to live in Malibu, which I'm quite fond of :D

ThaBigP

10-16-2007, 07:08 PM

The scientific community says you're full of it... so does a British court, in a ruling in the last coupla days...

Wrong again... do research the subject before running off at the mouth, unless you enjoy looking foolish...

And this is relevant how??

Somebody doesn't read the news. The British court found 11 fundamental factual errors with AIC, it did not exonerate it. Most fundamental was the erroneous claim that CO2 consentrations drive GW (the entire "hook" of the theory"). The historical evidence shows that CO2 rises *after* temps have risen, not before. I think a quote from one of my favorate philosopher's is called for... "... do research the subject before running off at the mouth, unless you enjoy looking foolish... "

AbeBeta

10-17-2007, 01:43 PM

Somebody doesn't read the news. The British court found 11 fundamental factual errors with AIC, it did not exonerate it. Most fundamental was the erroneous claim that CO2 consentrations drive GW (the entire "hook" of the theory"). The historical evidence shows that CO2 rises *after* temps have risen, not before. I think a quote from one of my favorate philosopher's is called for... "... do research the subject before running off at the mouth, unless you enjoy looking foolish... "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html

Says: "Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified '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.'

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

Mavs Man

10-17-2007, 03:03 PM

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

I always knew dentists were evil.

BrAinPaiNt

10-17-2007, 04:10 PM

Just thought I'd throw this in there. On topic and published this morning.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12160

I always laugh when people bring up Yassar Arafat.

Sure he had no business winning the award but what people never seem to add to it is that He won it JOINTLY with the Prime Minister AND Foreign Minister of.....ISRAEL. Hmm..why is that almost always left out?

Jimmy Carter. Not sure why people rag on him and his prize. Guy was a terrible president, guy should keep his mouth shut today. But to act like he never did anything to try to help humanity is silly.

Now another question I have for people.

When was the last time a military soldier won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting in a war? Kind of hard to award a peace prize to a soldier when he is fighting and killing in a war.

Sure the end result of war may be peace, but it is hardly a peaceful process to get to the end.

Just a few things to consider.

And before anyone starts jumping up and down ripping on me...I do NOT like Al Gore, Would never want to see him as president and I think the majority of his Priorities in this area are to mainly benefit himself and not humanity.

But that does not take away from those that would just bring up Arafat's name without mentioning WHO he won the award with. Nor does it take away from people who mock Carter in the one area he seemed to do half way decent.

Don't know of too many presidents who have continued helping Humanity in various areas as Carter did or does.

Whether people do not like a President for his political party or many of his ideas...no need to rag on the guy for trying to help in some areas.

If you did not like Bush Sr or Bill Clinton...So be it, but when they get together to go around and try to help raise money for people who have been hit by horrific natural conditions...no need to mock or make light of that effort. One should be able to put aside those petty things and acknowledge the effort.

BrAinPaiNt

10-17-2007, 04:12 PM

I always knew dentists were evil.

:laugh2:

There is a line from a move called Doc Hollywood.

Something along the lines of.

I never have trusted someone who is paid to put their hands in another persons mouth.

:laugh2:

Mavs Man

10-17-2007, 04:20 PM

:laugh2:

There is a line from a move called Doc Hollywood.

Something along the lines of.

I never have trusted someone who is paid to put their hands in another persons mouth.

:laugh2:

That's not the only thing some dentists like to get their hands on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21325760/

ThaBigP

10-17-2007, 08:52 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html

Says: "Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified '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.'

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

Sorry, but you did not do your homework, nor did many reporters. The core of the GW argument, that CO2 levels drive temperatures on Earth, is the opposite of reality. Historical records show that CO2 levels increase *AFTER* temps have increased, usually be several thousand years. This was shown to be the case during trial, and the court ruled accordingly. This means it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for CO2 to cause global temps to rise, at least as claimed by GW activists. Humerously, most reporters in news sites have been copying/pasting from other news sites (word-for-word, including punctuation, I've noticed). They mearly mention that the "two charts" (i.e. temps vs CO2 consentration) did "not match up" or "support Gore's argument". Only a handfull actually presented the true finding, that not only did the two charts "not match up", they were deliberately switched in order to try to prove a point. There's a big difference there.

Most of the copy/paste reporters simply opined that "...to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case."

That is a limp-wristed, watered-down version of what the science and the court actually said. A deliberate attempt by many in the media to "whitewash" the fact that the court reveiwed the science and deemed the charts were swapped around in order to try to make a point that science DOES NOT SUPPORT. Not merely that the "charts did not match up".

The science and the court actually said - "The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. "

The problem is, in spite of the core of the GW argument - that CO2 rises cause temp rises, and that the evidence is the Antarctic ice sheet melting off (BTW, that was opposite of reality as well. You probably don't care though) - being shattered by the science, which finally got a public audience in this case, you still drone on about the other parts that science does support. It is utterly irrelivent that you want credit for Gore getting his name right on the exam if the core of the GW arguement does not stand up to science.

Sasquatch

10-17-2007, 09:29 PM

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 09:02 AM

Sorry, but you did not do your homework, nor did many reporters. The core of the GW argument, that CO2 levels drive temperatures on Earth, is the opposite of reality. Historical records show that CO2 levels increase *AFTER* temps have increased, usually be several thousand years. This was shown to be the case during trial, and the court ruled accordingly. This means it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for CO2 to cause global temps to rise, at least as claimed by GW activists. Humerously, most reporters in news sites have been copying/pasting from other news sites (word-for-word, including punctuation, I've noticed). They mearly mention that the "two charts" (i.e. temps vs CO2 consentration) did "not match up" or "support Gore's argument". Only a handfull actually presented the true finding, that not only did the two charts "not match up", they were deliberately switched in order to try to prove a point. There's a big difference there.

Most of the copy/paste reporters simply opined that "...to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case."

That is a limp-wristed, watered-down version of what the science and the court actually said. A deliberate attempt by many in the media to "whitewash" the fact that the court reveiwed the science and deemed the charts were swapped around in order to try to make a point that science DOES NOT SUPPORT. Not merely that the "charts did not match up".

The science and the court actually said - "The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. "

The problem is, in spite of the core of the GW argument - that CO2 rises cause temp rises, and that the evidence is the Antarctic ice sheet melting off (BTW, that was opposite of reality as well. You probably don't care though) - being shattered by the science, which finally got a public audience in this case, you still drone on about the other parts that science does support. It is utterly irrelivent that you want credit for Gore getting his name right on the exam if the core of the GW arguement does not stand up to science.

Are you freaking serious? I didn't do my homework. I guess neither did the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, the Joint Sciences Academy, et al.

And you should do a bit more HW on Gore. You act as though his only contribution to this issue has been his film -- he's been very active on environmental issues for decades and global climate change in particular for a very very long time.

I think also you need to understand what a popular media product is about -- no freaking documentary is going to stand up to scientific peer-review -- if it did, it would be boring as hell and nobody would want to watch it. You watch any popular science program and that is the case. Science is complicated and you can't present every single issue with depth that satisfies experts. This isn't a published paper, it is a movie. Further, as the ruling stated, a handful of disputed facts does not make the core message untrue.

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 09:14 AM

Are you freaking serious? I didn't do my homework. I guess neither did the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, the Joint Sciences Academy, et al.

And you should do a bit more HW on Gore. You act as though his only contribution to this issue has been his film -- he's been very active on environmental issues for decades and global climate change in particular for a very very long time.

I think also you need to understand what a popular media product is about -- no freaking documentary is going to stand up to scientific peer-review -- if it did, it would be boring as hell and nobody would want to watch it. You watch any popular science program and that is the case. Science is complicated and you can't present every single issue with depth that satisfies experts. This isn't a published paper, it is a movie. Further, as the ruling stated, a handful of disputed facts does not make the core message untrue.

................and still no one has given me a decent explanation of how this work qualifies for a peace prize.

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 09:22 AM

I always laugh when people bring up Yassar Arafat.

Sure he had no business winning the award but what people never seem to add to it is that He won it JOINTLY with the Prime Minister AND Foreign Minister of.....ISRAEL. Hmm..why is that almost always left out?I honestly don't see how either person deserved the peace prize. But whether someone else was included or not, Arafat was one of the last people who deserved the prize.

Jimmy Carter. Not sure why people rag on him and his prize. Guy was a terrible president, guy should keep his mouth shut today. But to act like he never did anything to try to help humanity is silly.
I don't understand how people can criticize Carter winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Whether or not you agree with his politics, it's hard to argue the fact that he has done more than most to promote peace around the world.

Now another question I have for people.

When was the last time a military soldier won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting in a war? Kind of hard to award a peace prize to a soldier when he is fighting and killing in a war.

Sure the end result of war may be peace, but it is hardly a peaceful process to get to the end.

Just a few things to consider.
I agree.

If you did not like Bush Sr or Bill Clinton...So be it, but when they get together to go around and try to help raise money for people who have been hit by horrific natural conditions...no need to mock or make light of that effort. One should be able to put aside those petty things and acknowledge the effort.Bush Sr and Bill Clinton would have been more deserving recipients than Gore and the IPCC, but there still has to be someone out there who has done a lot more to promote peace.

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 09:33 AM

................and still no one has given me a decent explanation of how this work qualifies for a peace prize.

it is a humanitarian prize. Mother Theresa didn't focus on peace either now did she? Folks get too hung up on the name of the prize and fail to view the history of the awards

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 09:46 AM

it is a humanitarian prize. Mother Theresa didn't focus on peace either now did she? Folks get too hung up on the name of the prize and fail to view the history of the awards
Gore doesn't do much humanitarian work either. His humanitarian work is miniscule compared to the work being done by Clinton and Bush Sr. and others.

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 10:35 AM

Gore doesn't do much humanitarian work either. His humanitarian work is miniscule compared to the work being done by Clinton and Bush Sr. and others.

all comes down to your take on Global Climate Change. maintaining a livable planet has a ton to do with humanitarian efforts in my book.

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 11:52 AM

all comes down to your take on Global Climate Change. maintaining a livable planet has a ton to do with humanitarian efforts in my book.

What exactly has he done in his own life to lower his carbon output? Paying a company he owns for his excesses doesn't make him a saint? Did he pocket the money from his book and movie or donate the money to find solutions for the cause he so strongly believes in? Is Bush's house still more energy efficient than Gore's? What is he doing in his own company to ensure the money paid to the company is used efficiently and correctly to combat global warming?

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 12:28 PM

What exactly has he done in his own life to lower his carbon output? Paying a company he owns for his excesses doesn't make him a saint? Did he pocket the money from his book and movie or donate the money to find solutions for the cause he so strongly believes in? Is Bush's house still more energy efficient than Gore's? What is he doing in his own company to ensure the money paid to the company is used efficiently and correctly to combat global warming?

zzzzzzz.

you seriously can't dispute his record on raising awareness of these issues.

whether you agree or not, it is obvious he has spent a huge proportion of his career on climate change and related issue.

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 01:27 PM

zzzzzzz.

you seriously can't dispute his record on raising awareness of these issues.

whether you agree or not, it is obvious he has spent a huge proportion of his career on climate change and related issue.
I wouldn't want to answer any of those tough questions if I was you either.

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 02:31 PM

I wouldn't want to answer any of those tough questions if I was you either.

It is funny how you ignore his entire record of service and hone in on his power bill - yeah, that's more important. For a Libertarian, you sure seem to argue a lot like Rush Limbaugh.

AtlCB

10-18-2007, 02:49 PM

It is funny how you ignore his entire record of service and hone in on his power bill - yeah, that's more important. For a Libertarian, you sure seem to argue a lot like Rush Limbaugh.
I find it ironic that you talk about honing in on just his power bar. I listed other concerns as well in that post. Al Gore is a hypocrite. From someone not blinded by a cause, this seems to be a business for him. He is making millions of dollars from the middle class by pushing this agenda, but he doesn't seem to believe the danger is real enough for him to make the same though choices that he is asking us to make. I'm sorry, but your hero is a hypocrite.

AbeBeta

10-18-2007, 09:47 PM

I find it ironic that you talk about honing in on just his power bar. I listed other concerns as well in that post. Al Gore is a hypocrite. From someone not blinded by a cause, this seems to be a business for him. He is making millions of dollars from the middle class by pushing this agenda, but he doesn't seem to believe the danger is real enough for him to make the same though choices that he is asking us to make. I'm sorry, but your hero is a hypocrite.

Yeah. It is all a business for him. For years he's been pushing this issue in anticipation of being able to profit off carbon credits. Right.

ThaBigP

10-18-2007, 09:56 PM

Are you freaking serious? I didn't do my homework. I guess neither did the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, the Joint Sciences Academy, et al.

And you should do a bit more HW on Gore. You act as though his only contribution to this issue has been his film -- he's been very active on environmental issues for decades and global climate change in particular for a very very long time.

I think also you need to understand what a popular media product is about -- no freaking documentary is going to stand up to scientific peer-review -- if it did, it would be boring as hell and nobody would want to watch it. You watch any popular science program and that is the case. Science is complicated and you can't present every single issue with depth that satisfies experts. This isn't a published paper, it is a movie. Further, as the ruling stated, a handful of disputed facts does not make the core message untrue.

Sorry - if you (and I mean Gore, not *you* personally) have to deliberately lie to make your case....then you have no case. Point settled.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 08:10 AM

Yeah. It is all a business for him. For years he's been pushing this issue in anticipation of being able to profit off carbon credits. Right.
Yeah, he cries about global warming, but uses about 10 times the average person. Great example! He must really be concerned about the environment. :rolleyes:

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 08:24 AM

Yeah, he cries about global warming, but uses about 10 times the average person. Great example! He must really be concerned about the environment. :rolleyes:

the average person doesn't have two home offices running out of their home and construction going on at their house. :rolleyes:

again, you fail to focus on the REAL issue - but I expect that from you.

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 08:26 AM

Sorry - if you (and I mean Gore, not *you* personally) have to deliberately lie to make your case....then you have no case. Point settled.

Deliberately lie? Please. Most university lectures wouldn't stand up to that sort of scrutiny. You lack any form of perspective

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 08:58 AM

the average person doesn't have two home offices running out of their home and construction going on at their house. :rolleyes:

again, you fail to focus on the REAL issue - but I expect that from you.He was using more than 10 times the average person before he began construction on his home. Exactly how much electricity does a home office use???? Does he have an office complex in his house.

I bet his private jet and limosines (sp?) are extremely fuel efficient as well. If you are going to preach energy conservation, then you lead by example.

Of course, I would expect that you would ignore the fact that your hero is a hypocrite.

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 09:41 AM

He was using more than 10 times the average person before he began construction on his home. Exactly how much electricity does a home office use???? Does he have an office complex in his house.

I bet his private jet and limosines (sp?) are extremely fuel efficient as well. If you are going to preach energy conservation, then you lead by example.

Of course, I would expect that you would ignore the fact that your hero is a hypocrite.

Again, the personal attack is the last resort of those who can't attack Gore's record of service.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 10:00 AM

Again, the personal attack is the last resort of those who can't attack Gore's record of service.

Sorry, but you can't preach physical fitness when you weigh 500lbs. You can't preach humility if you are T.O. or Chad Johnson. You can't preach ethics if you cheat. You can't preach conservation when you use ten times the amount of energy as the rest of the country.

This is an attack on Gore's record of service.

Do you want more proof that your hero is a hypocrite. Do you remember him crying about the recount of the left-leaning Florida counties? He then tries to prevent the military absentee ballots from being counted in Florida. I'd like for you to explain that one to me.

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 10:27 AM

Sorry, but you can't preach physical fitness when you weigh 500lbs. You can't preach humility if you are T.O. or Chad Johnson. You can't preach ethics if you cheat. You can't preach conservation when you use ten times the amount of energy as the rest of the country.

This is an attack on Gore's record of service.

Do you want more proof that your hero is a hypocrite. Do you remember him crying about the recount of the left-leaning Florida counties? He then tries to prevent the military absentee ballots from being counted in Florida. I'd like for you to explain that one to me.

Again, your attacks remain lame Druge-report parroting that are desperate attempts to avoid the core issues.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 10:50 AM

Again, your attacks remain lame Druge-report parroting that are desperate attempts to avoid the core issues.

I don't read the drudge report.

The core issue is whether or not Al Gore deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

jterrell

10-19-2007, 11:06 AM

The core issue is whether or not Al Gore deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Umm, you do not decide that.

Thats why this entire thread is silly with a capital S.

The award is decided on by specific folks who found him worthy.
Unless you can seriously state you agreed with all their other choices than nothing has changed recently, nothing has happened that's any surprise.

Neo-cons hate Gore so they bash him with all the ferocity they used to toss at Bill Clinton. As for Gore....
He is a non-factor to me period as a Democrat.

But' I'll defend anyone being attacked by plainly idiotic arguments that fail to pass logic 101.

Gore's energy consumption is wayyyy overblown.
He has solar panels and uses phosphorescent bulbs.

His energy bill is through the roof each month because he buys his electricity from a company that uses wind, methane gas and water to generate electricity. He also buys green credits to preserve forests.

Gore has never suggested we stop using electricity. But let's not stop a valid point from having us leap off the deep end.

As to what he has done how about offer his time free of charge to Climate symposiums. How about starting up non-profit organizations that focus on global warming? You know how much Bush Sr and Clinton charge per hour to give speeches?

Take a good long look int he mirror and ask yourself are you qualified to overrule a panel's decision as to who wins the Nobel Prize in any category?

If you think you are then load up on the popcorn for T.O.'s humility training 101.

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 11:10 AM

I don't read the drudge report.

Funny because your posts are pretty much verbatim from the Drudge report

jterrell

10-19-2007, 11:17 AM

Funny because your posts are pretty much verbatim from the Drudge report

In defense of AtlCB I think he is getting his info from the conservative blog'o'sphere which touts that stuff non-stop. I do not at all doubt his comments.

His takes remind me much more of the hot air of a conservative blog rant.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 12:20 PM

In defense of AtlCB I think he is getting his info from the conservative blog'o'sphere which touts that stuff non-stop. I do not at all doubt his comments.

His takes remind me much more of the hot air of a conservative blog rant.
I don't get my comments from the conservative blog'o'sphere either. I come up with my own opinions after looking at all of the facts, but I tend to lean more libertarian.

Anyone not looking at the world with liberal glasses can tend to look at someone with skepticism who preaches to the world about conservation, but fails to live by those principles in which he spouts.

I would like someone to tell me where I am wrong on this. Instead, you are attacking me and not the message.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 12:24 PM

Umm, you do not decide that.

Thats why this entire thread is silly with a capital S.

The award is decided on by specific folks who found him worthy.
Unless you can seriously state you agreed with all their other choices than nothing has changed recently, nothing has happened that's any surprise.

Neo-cons hate Gore so they bash him with all the ferocity they used to toss at Bill Clinton. As for Gore....
He is a non-factor to me period as a Democrat.

But' I'll defend anyone being attacked by plainly idiotic arguments that fail to pass logic 101.

Gore's energy consumption is wayyyy overblown.
He has solar panels and uses phosphorescent bulbs.

His energy bill is through the roof each month because he buys his electricity from a company that uses wind, methane gas and water to generate electricity. He also buys green credits to preserve forests.

Gore has never suggested we stop using electricity. But let's not stop a valid point from having us leap off the deep end.

As to what he has done how about offer his time free of charge to Climate symposiums. How about starting up non-profit organizations that focus on global warming? You know how much Bush Sr and Clinton charge per hour to give speeches?

Take a good long look int he mirror and ask yourself are you qualified to overrule a panel's decision as to who wins the Nobel Prize in any category?

If you think you are then load up on the popcorn for T.O.'s humility training 101.

As an American, I have the freedom to express that I think the award has become a farce and that Al Gore should not have even been considered for the prize. I also have the right to say that Clinton and Bush Sr were much more deserving of the award. The peace price was awarded as a political gesture to support the global warming theory instead of actually giving the award to someone who has donated time or money to promote peace or help others.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 12:27 PM

Funny because your posts are pretty much verbatim from the Drudge report

Your accusations are starting to amuse me. I'm not surprised that you have attacked me instead of addressing my concerns. Al Gore's track record is not easily defended.

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 12:39 PM

Al Gore's track record is not easily defended.

I will give you this - you are an expert on issues that cannot be defended.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 01:39 PM

I will give you this - you are an expert on issues that cannot be defended.

That's anything not left-wing?

AbeBeta

10-19-2007, 01:45 PM

That's anything not left-wing?

Again, you fail to understand that Global Climate Change is not a liberal issue -- with all the scientific organizations and now the Nobel committee supporting this issue, you should have plenty of evidence of that.

jterrell

10-19-2007, 02:33 PM

As an American, I have the freedom to express that I think the award has become a farce and that Al Gore should not have even been considered for the prize. I also have the right to say that Clinton and Bush Sr were much more deserving of the award. The peace price was awarded as a political gesture to support the global warming theory instead of actually giving the award to someone who has donated time or money to promote peace or help others.

You can also drink yellow snow and spit in the wind but I'd rather not watch you do it.
The award is not American.

No one here got a vote on it.

If you want to cry about then feel free but don't get your feelings hurt when it's pointed out how silly it is.

I'd argue Clinton and Bush Sr were both better Americans than Gore but not that they did more for global concerns as both men would have ran roughshod over other countries for America. I did not at all like Bush Sr's antiquated economic policies but he was smart and he was a good American. Clinton has some serious moral issues to deal with but he was a great President in policy.

Gore would suck as President but he has pushed Americans to think of our climate and as the world's only real superpower that is big.

But you know what, none of that matters as to the prize itself.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 03:09 PM

Again, you fail to understand that Global Climate Change is not a liberal issue -- with all the scientific organizations and now the Nobel committee supporting this issue, you should have plenty of evidence of that.
The thread was about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. We can debate global warming on another thread.

AtlCB

10-19-2007, 03:18 PM

You can also drink yellow snow and spit in the wind but I'd rather not watch you do it.
The award is not American.

No one here got a vote on it.

If you want to cry about then feel free but don't get your feelings hurt when it's pointed out how silly it is.

I'd argue Clinton and Bush Sr were both better Americans than Gore but not that they did more for global concerns as both men would have ran roughshod over other countries for America. I did not at all like Bush Sr's antiquated economic policies but he was smart and he was a good American. Clinton has some serious moral issues to deal with but he was a great President in policy.

Gore would suck as President but he has pushed Americans to think of our climate and as the world's only real superpower that is big.

But you know what, none of that matters as to the prize itself.
It's a political forum and I'm voicing my opinion. I mentioned Gore and Bush Sr., because they have dedicated their time for humanitarian causes. They helped people after major disasters. They were not paid for helping people recover from these disasters. Gore hasn't helped anybody except his own pocketbook. The peace prize should be given to those who help selflessly.

I agree with your other assessments on Bush Sr and Clinton. I thought Bush Sr. was a terrible president, but a very good person (I feel the same way about Carter). Clinton was a very good president with some personal problems. I don't believe either president would have run roughshot over other countries.