Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Unlike you, I don't base my positions on partisan politics and if you believe I do, it is just one more example of your ignorance. And I would agree that as america slides further towards modern liberalism, its credibliity does suffer.
Kasparov's comments about loss of credibility were aimed directly at the Bush Administration, hardly a bastion of "modern liberalism". Perhaps you are unable to agree with him solely on that basis. If that be the case, then your claims of being non partisan again ring hollow.
 
Werbung:
Kasparov's comments about loss of credibility were aimed directly at the Bush Administration, hardly a bastion of "modern liberalism". Perhaps you are unable to agree with him solely on that basis. If that be the case, then your claims of being non partisan again ring hollow.

Very true and isn't this statement interesting... And I would agree that as America slides further toward modern liberalism, its credibility does suffer.

Being a democratic style of government America "slides" to the will of the people... it's what the people want that creates the change. So I think what's been said here is... well... interesting to say the least! ;)

This is what I've been saying... it's not just a Freudian slip... the neo-cons themselves know they are becoming extinct.
 
It is you who needs some evidence if you believe that what is happening now is not perfectly normal and has not happened repeatedly during the course of earth's history.
Putting aside that it is Al Gore presenting the information. From the information he presents, in combination with the changes I have noticed with my own eyes, I would say his idea sounds certainly plausible. So if you have evidence that shows Gore is wrong, Id like to read it.
 
A couple of points that apparently no one has thought to ask themselves:

(1) Take a look at Popeye's list. Most of those folks have actually done something -- brought an end to conflicts, for instance. Gore has not actually stopped global warming. It can't even be honestly said that he has promoted action on its behalf; what nation of worth is doing something today that they weren't doing before his movie? Has the Nobel Peace Prize become some sort of ersatz second-grade science fair blue ribbon, which everyone gets merely for the effort?

(2) If Gore's work is scientifically credible (it is not; details on request), why wasn't he given a prize in one of Nobel's science categories?

I suggested a few months back that any actual change in earth's temperature might benefit mankind. It logically follows that if the world is getting hotter, it is also getting less cold. People are better suited to warm climates than they are cold climates, which is why more people uniformly die from cold snaps than do from heat waves. I have not heard a refutation of this yet.
 
From Time's "Heroes of the Environment"
Al Gore had stumbled into the issue of global warming as a student at Harvard. He grasped the science quickly and, as his political star rose, he never relented in his determination to alert people that we're baking our planet and ourselves with our lust for fossil fuels. More than a few ignoramuses mocked the Congressman, Senator, Vice President and presidential candidate for his scientific insight. Only after Gore left politics did he find a formula for accomplishing his life's work, creating a global media brand around the PowerPoint presentation that became his aptly titled book and documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Fate may have kept Al Gore from the presidency, but his tenacity has created something few politicians achieve: a movement. His Alliance for Climate Protection led to the Live Earth concerts, and on Oct. 12 he was named as joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, together with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for being "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to combat global warming. If Gore joined the throng now running for President — unlikely — he would be the only candidate for whom the question, "Why are you running?" would already have been asked and answered.

When he ran for President in 1988, Gore promised me that if elected he would fly the nation's top reporters and pundits over the Greenland ice cap and Amazonian rain forest on Air Force One. That would awaken them at last, he thought — thereby awakening the public, and eventually maybe even politicians.

The next President won't have to fly reporters over the world's still-shrinking ice caps and still-burning forests. The public has finally grasped the most important issue of 1988, 2008 and 2028. That is due almost entirely to the courage and tireless work of Al Gore.
 
Come on guys... I don't think any case at all can be made that the selection of Gore was somehow mysteriously "rigged". The people who decide picked him on the merits of his work as they saw it... it's just that simple.

Research and documentation are often important first steps to understanding the unknown. You know there are still crazy "creationist" that swear the earth is only 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. Even though all the real science contradicts that notion in massive huge ways. It's not even close as a discussion. But some people still say the earth isn't millions of years old & dinosaurs roamed the earth with man back in Biblical times.

The most important thing that Gore has done with his environmentalist outlook into Climate Change is it gets people thinking about mans handling of the environment and the obvious effect man made pollution at all levels has on the planet.

No one thinks pollution is a good thing... do they??? And everyone can do the math on all the things that are used by ever growing populations on a planet that will always stay the same size. The effect of creating all these things and their disposal at the end of their use is an obvious thing to consider seriously.

I just say kudos to Mr. Gore for taking the time to explore into the unknown with an environmentalist intent. You know those crazy environmentalists... if it's not clean air it's clean water.:)
 
Kasparov's comments about loss of credibility were aimed directly at the Bush Administration, hardly a bastion of "modern liberalism". Perhaps you are unable to agree with him solely on that basis. If that be the case, then your claims of being non partisan again ring hollow.

There is no doubt that bush has moved the country to the left. If you don't like the way it looks, perhaps you are a closet conservative.
 
Very true and isn't this statement interesting... And I would agree that as America slides further toward modern liberalism, its credibility does suffer.

Being a democratic style of government America "slides" to the will of the people... it's what the people want that creates the change. So I think what's been said here is... well... interesting to say the least! ;)

This is what I've been saying... it's not just a Freudian slip... the neo-cons themselves know they are becoming extinct.

If you believe that I am a neo con, then clearly you dont have a clue as to what is a neo con. I may be lots of things, but neo con is not one of them and if you had a clue, this would be evident in my positions.
 
Putting aside that it is Al Gore presenting the information. From the information he presents, in combination with the changes I have noticed with my own eyes, I would say his idea sounds certainly plausible. So if you have evidence that shows Gore is wrong, Id like to read it.

The most blatant error in algore's presentation is a corelation that he makes between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures and states quite explicitly that rising CO2 emissions cause rising temperatures.

The fact is that every ice core ever studied clearly indicates a lag of between 600 and 1000 years between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Clearly, rising CO2 levels are a result of rising temperatures, not a cause. If one gives up the false idea that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, then one has no argument to make at all.

Here is an article that explains much in simple terms. If you want hard core science, I can provide that as well.
 
Come on guys... I don't think any case at all can be made that the selection of Gore was somehow mysteriously "rigged". The people who decide picked him on the merits of his work as they saw it... it's just that simple.


Nobel specified that the Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Exactly what does al's misinformative movie have to do with the above criteria?


Research and documentation are often important first steps to understanding the unknown. You know there are still crazy "creationist" that swear the earth is only 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. Even though all the real science contradicts that notion in massive huge ways. It's not even close as a discussion. But some people still say the earth isn't millions of years old & dinosaurs roamed the earth with man back in Biblical times.

Real science contradicts algore's basic premise. He states that rising CO2 levels are causing global warming. Ice core studies clearly indicate that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause. Your whole suggestion that some people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old has absolutely nothing to do with al's movie and as such, is nothing more than a straw man designed to poison the well in some manner.

The most important thing that Gore has done with his environmentalist outlook into Climate Change is it gets people thinking about mans handling of the environment and the obvious effect man made pollution at all levels has on the planet.

But he has stated that we are causing global warming as if it were fact and it simply is not.

No one thinks pollution is a good thing... do they??? And everyone can do the math on all the things that are used by ever growing populations on a planet that will always stay the same size. The effect of creating all these things and their disposal at the end of their use is an obvious thing to consider seriously.

Controlling pollution is a valuable and honorable ambition. That, however, is not what algore is all about. He is saying that we are causing the climate to change and he hasn't a shred of evidence to support the claim.

I just say kudos to Mr. Gore for taking the time to explore into the unknown with an environmentalist intent. You know those crazy environmentalists... if it's not clean air it's clean water.:)

You say kudos to al for making a biased, scientifically inaccurate movie designed to scare people in order that a small group of elites may gain political power over them? That sounds like you.
 
Bunz,

Sorry, I just noticed that the link I posted didn't post. Here, once again, is some information regarding gore's error with regard to the relationship between warming and CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Climate_Corrections-WSJ.com.pdf

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070628.html

http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/singer.html

These are written pretty much in plain language and cover a variety of topics. If you want hard core science, I can provide more, and a bibliography if you are the library sort.
 
Come on guys... I don't think any case at all can be made that the selection of Gore was somehow mysteriously "rigged". The people who decide picked him on the merits of his work as they saw it... it's just that simple.

Research and documentation are often important first steps to understanding the unknown. You know there are still crazy "creationist" that swear the earth is only 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. Even though all the real science contradicts that notion in massive huge ways. It's not even close as a discussion. But some people still say the earth isn't millions of years old & dinosaurs roamed the earth with man back in Biblical times.

The most important thing that Gore has done with his environmentalist outlook into Climate Change is it gets people thinking about mans handling of the environment and the obvious effect man made pollution at all levels has on the planet.

No one thinks pollution is a good thing... do they??? And everyone can do the math on all the things that are used by ever growing populations on a planet that will always stay the same size. The effect of creating all these things and their disposal at the end of their use is an obvious thing to consider seriously.

I just say kudos to Mr. Gore for taking the time to explore into the unknown with an environmentalist intent. You know those crazy environmentalists... if it's not clean air it's clean water.:)

OK, well, no one said it was "rigged." That would be a stupid thing to say. How can you rig an election that's already run by a very small group of people? If they want a particular person to win, they will. What they're being accused of is politically-motivated hackery.

Again, if we're to believe Gore's work is scientifically credible (and again, it is not -- he draws causation where there is, oftentimes, not even correlation), he should've been awarded a Nobel Prize in one of the science categories.

"Getting people thinking" about stuff amounts to ****o. I recently wrote an op-ed piece for the school newspaper that got people thinking about how ugly the new center for contemporary arts is. Where's my Nobel Peace Prize? Hm? Since when did the Nobel Prize become about "getting people to think about doing stuff" rather than actually "doing stuff"? Like I said, Al Gore did not solve global warming (his prodigious energy consumption has, in fact, probably worsened it if we accept his theory). He has not even compelled anyone to do anything they weren't already doing. The world is still largely unchanged.
 
Agreed, SW. It's hard to take him seriously when he's flying back and forth from his energy-guzzling mansion in private lear jets saying that we should stop driving cars.

If this was really as imperative as he tricks many people to believing, then maybe he should try to fashion his home after the Bush model. Let's compare:

President Bush's Crawford Ranch:

Designed by architect professor of leading university, the 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

from the Chicago Tribune, April 29, 2001http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

Juxtapose this with the house of the utter and complete hypocrit, Al Gore (who by the way urges people to "Calculate your personal impact and learn how you can take action to reduce or even eliminate your emissions of carbon dioxide. You may be surprised by how much CO2 you are emitting each year." He wants you to dramatically change your lifestyle.

Consider his house in Tennessee. A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern “snow belt” area. It’s in the South.

According to The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Nashville Electric Services records obtained by the Center show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005.

Over the past two years, the gas and electric bills for his 20-room mansion and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

Nashville Gas Company billed the family during the same period an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.

What a model of economic purity. A true leader certainly deserving of such a prestigious award.
 
Werbung:
OK, well, no one said it was "rigged." That would be a stupid thing to say. How can you rig an election that's already run by a very small group of people? If they want a particular person to win, they will. What they're being accused of is politically-motivated hackery.

Again, if we're to believe Gore's work is scientifically credible (and again, it is not -- he draws causation where there is, oftentimes, not even correlation), he should've been awarded a Nobel Prize in one of the science categories.

"Getting people thinking" about stuff amounts to ****o. I recently wrote an op-ed piece for the school newspaper that got people thinking about how ugly the new center for contemporary arts is. Where's my Nobel Peace Prize? Hm? Since when did the Nobel Prize become about "getting people to think about doing stuff" rather than actually "doing stuff"? Like I said, Al Gore did not solve global warming (his prodigious energy consumption has, in fact, probably worsened it if we accept his theory). He has not even compelled anyone to do anything they weren't already doing. The world is still largely unchanged.

Well, while I'm sure Vice President Gore and the hundreds... actually thousands... of respected scientists and geologists from all around the world that agree with the concept that man is helping create a detrimental effect on the environment including climate change is on a par with your opinion in the "school paper"... I think there's a sort of obvious difference.

The committee has spoken. There's nothing to be gained by being a hater. Gore's work was recognized as important and credible. Now that doesn't mean everyone has to agree. But the ones giving out the prize... obviously did. :)
 
Back
Top