backtop


Print 307 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Oct 18 at 10:54 AM


Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth."

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri   (Source: iisd Reporting Services)
Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on climate change just won the Nobel

Al Gore has many admirers and critics, but on Friday the spotlight was on him again as the Nobel Peace Prize committee showered him with praise for his work promoting climate awareness and climate research.

The Nobel Peace Prize was not the first award received by Al Gore, 59, for his environmental work, but it was certainly the largest.  Al Gore had previously won an Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which was a surprising box office hit.

Gore shares the Peace Prize with the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), found in 1988, which is widely considered by scientists and governments worldwide as the top authority on global warming and climate change.

The IPCC has over 2,000 leading climate change scientists and experts that conduct research into climate change and collate data and information from research papers of thousands of other scientists worldwide.

The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee praised Gore as "Probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

"[The IPCC] creates an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.  [The IPCC] lays the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract [climate] change," said the committee about the IPCC.

It cited that a major justification for awarding this prize to the IPCC and Gore was to bring more attention to the increased risks of wars and violent conflicts that are posed as our climate changes.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri was overwhelmed by the awarded.  The India-native told his cheering supporters outside his Delhi office that he hopes the award will help further awareness and a greater sense of urgency about climate change.  Rajendra Pachauri's full reaction is documented on the IPCC website (PDF).

In Washington D.C., Gore greeted the announcement by first praising the IPCC and how "tirelessly and selflessly they have worked for many years." Gore added, "We face a true planetary emergency.  It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Gore will donate half of his $1.5 million dollars in Nobel Prize money to Alliance for Climate Protection.

Gore's work has had a major effect on the technology industry.  With his help, public sentiment has shifted as people realize that oil dependence will only last so many years.  This shift in turn has led to all the major car companies heavily pursuing, promoting, and investing in hybrid vehicles, many of which have been featured at DailyTech.

While his efforts to promote global warming research have often overshadowed his other environmental initiatives, Gore has also been a strong promoter of equally controversial rainforest protection, toxic waste control, and National Park System expansion initiatives.

The news follows the announcementsthat a British court declared An Inconvenient Truth unfit for British schools, as it has nine alleged factual inaccuracies.  Michael Asher elaborates more in his DailyTech blog.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, blasted Gore for his work on The Inconvenient Truth. "The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science. Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science."

Regardless, Al Gore and the IPPC now have their names cemented in immortality among other Peace Prize laureates including Nelson Mandela, Theodore Roosevelt and Mother Teresa.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 10:26:49 AM , Rating: 5
He's devoted a lot of his life to this. Even his critics would probably agree that living in a world with less pollution is not a bad thing.




RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 10:29:08 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly... I'm not an alarmist about climate change, but certainly know we need to start thinking ahead. Glad to see serious attention brought, rather than scare-me stories in the news (and various DailyTech blogs).


RE: Good for him
By GreenyMP on 10/12/2007 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. I applaud his devotion to his cause. I wish that Mr. Gore's causes were more inline with my own, but you have to give a guy credit that pursues a conviction as hard and as long as the father of the internet has (I guess he has to share that title with Kim Jong Il now).

But I still don't know what it has to do with peace.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 10:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
The peace prize is not only for creating peace. It is also awarded for resolving issues that face mankind.

Specifically, Gore and the UN received the prize "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"


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 10:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave. Here were the original mandate for the Peace Prize:

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

The only other clause is that the person still be living (which is why Gandhi never received an award).

Someone jokingly stated Dick Cheney should win the award. Well, I mean in a sense he dissolved the entire Iraqi Army overnight. As asinine as it sounds, he was a better candidate for this award than Al Gore.

Pardon me while I go do some research on the candidates who actually should have won this.


RE: Good for him
By fic2 on 10/12/2007 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 5
By the definition given Cheney does probably deserve it more than anyone. He has pretty much united all the nations to band together against the U.S.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hold onto that quote, it will make you famous.


RE: Good for him
By xphile on 10/15/2007 6:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Based on that criteria one George W Bush has been the unrivaled winner for the last 5 years solid. And there definitely is a certain peace in knowing who your real enemies are. Friends close ... etc. Yay for real democracy like the Jeb Bush Florida Felon Voting System. I wouldn't mind being a Kennedy, but I'm damn glad I'm not an American when BS like that takes place over and over again.

I'm really happy for Gore. He may not deserve this in some ways, but it pretty much makes up for the fact that for most people with half a brain or more outside the US he will always be the real 43rd president that wasn't - and thats a nice bit of justice. That and the fact that in 100 years he will be applauded and GW will be scorned.


RE: Good for him
By KeithTalent on 10/12/2007 12:08:26 PM , Rating: 5
Right and he wasn't rolling in his grave when Arafat won it?

Anyway, just because the award recipient's work does not adhere 100% to the original idea presented by Nobel, it does not mean the recipient is any less deserving. Times change and I think the interpretation of the award is subject to change to a certain degree as well as long as the general spirit of the award is kept intact.


RE: Good for him
By Chaser on 10/12/2007 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 4
This is just a slap in the face to the United States by all the good intentioned peace nics that gave Jimmy Carter one too.

Gore is a private lear jet riding alarmist milking the feel good money train to nirvana. Like many other "environmentally sensitive" hypocrites he flys around in private jets, has several gigantic mansions to his disposal, vacation homes scattered around the U.S. and abroad and as one of the largest shareholders of Google lives a life of luxury most couldn't begin to imagine. Yet his disputed fear mongering tells everyone else to walk to work, ride bicycles, turn down our thermostats.

He couldn't win an election but even a broken clock can be right twice a day. What a discredit to the Nobel system yet quite frankly not a surprise. Beat that little drum loud enough, make everyone feel guilty, add in plenty of photo opportunities and press coverage and you'll probably get one too.



RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He couldn't win an election


Gore did win the election. Do you forget the massive fraud in Florida?


RE: Good for him
By TwistyKat on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
lol it's the opening line of the movie for f&#k's sake!


RE: Good for him
By buckao on 10/12/2007 3:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Fraud in Florida? What the hell are you talking about? They did a recount after the fact and Bush came up the winner, though not by much. What people are upset about is that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to our electoral college system. This has nothing to do with fraud, this is how our system works. If you are trying to say that the system needs to be changed so that the Prez is elected purely on the basis of the popular vote, I'd agree with you, but don't call it fraud.

There was also some uncertainty in the reading of some of the ballots, due to hanging chads, un-punched holes, etc, but this is always the case, and happens in every election, in every state. When you are talking about millions of votes, all punched by hand, and counted by hand, there is going to be some uncertainty in the count. This is inevitable. To eliminate this, districts in Florida (I live in FL, by the way) started switching to electronic machines, but now everyone is complaining and wants to go back to paper ballots. The old people down here say the machines confuse them. Well, if you can't figure out a touch screen voting machine, maybe you're too stupid or senile to vote, anyway.


RE: Good for him
By Dactyl on 10/12/2007 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
They did a recount after the fact and Bush came up the winner, though not by much

Sort of. The recount, which was done by a media consortium including the New York Times (so it's probably not biased in favor of Bush, in fact it probably wasn't biased at all), found that:

1: if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount, Bush would still have won

2: if a single, uniform standard (ANY uniform standard) had been used for all of Florida's counties, Gore would have won.

The funny thing was, it was Bush who complained to stop the recount because Florida wasn't using a single standard. Al Gore didn't want to use a single standard.

Plenty of irony to go around. If Gore had been principled enough to demand a single standard for the whole state, he might have been president. If the Supreme Court hadn't tarnished its credibility by stopping the recount, the result would be the same.


RE: Good for him
By Hacp on 10/16/2007 3:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
He buys carbon credits to offset his carbon use.


RE: Good for him
By dl429 on 10/12/2007 1:02:42 PM , Rating: 4
I have personally seen enough death and enough people hurt over economic control of fossil fuels to last two lifetimes. The United States has been at war in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. We're there because the region has oil and oil is vital to our economic security. Without oil EVERYTHING stops. There will be no fraternity between nations and standing armies will never rest when control of the last oil reserves is on the line. Oil is a finite resource and will eventually be exhausted. You want to specualte to what lengths different nations will go to control the last of it? Eliminating dependency of fossil fuels will do more to bring peace than anything else in the world including "spreading democracy".


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 1:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't find the Iraqi oil argument very persuasive. Iraqi oil always has, and always will, find its way to market, since the Iraqi people directly depend on the associated income flow for their livelihood.

Furthermore, while Iraq is a significant source of oil, it is only one of a large number of countries that provide oil to the market. Therefore, I don't see how any kind of argument can be made that going to war in Iraq is necessary to ensure our supply of oil from that particular country.


RE: Good for him
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 2:27:25 PM , Rating: 1
Well then why are we in Iraq? Because of the humanitarian strife there? What about the entire continent of Africa?

No, we're not there to forcibly take the oil, but we're there to secure our interest in the oil rich nations all around that region.

I agree that it's misguided to be in Iraq for the purpose of securing our access to oil as a whole, but that's 100% the entire reason. It's ironic because if we'd spent the Trillion or so dollars and hundreds of thousands of people working toward a better energy solution, we'd be totally free from the NEED to depend on foreign countries like this.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By Ringold on 10/12/2007 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
Put down the liberal Kool-Aid, and ponder.

Lets say that you are correct with you 200 year old logic and we must forcibly "protect" such resources; ie, that if we're not there, then Iraq will not sell us their oil.

Lets also say that there are only four economic groups in the world. Iraq, the US, a the non-Iraq net oil exporting world, and a non-US bloc.

US demand: 10 barrels. Non-US bloc demand: 10 barrels.
Iraq supply: 10 barrels. Non-Iraq supply: 10 barrels.

Now watch the free market in action! Iraq refuses to sell us any more oil, and previously lets us say we got all of it from them and now for the moment have none. The market immediately switches around such that we now get our 10 barrels from countries with less a stick up their ass and non-US bloc now get their oil from Iraq.

In other words, as long as the oil continues to flow out of Iraq, it doesn't in fact matter who runs Iraq nor who they sell it to. Massive self-interest insures that Iraq will, in fact, continue to export oil.

Only logical conclusion? Whatever we may be there for (a family vendetta is a far easier position to hold), it's tin-hat talk to think it's for oil. I hope my elementary school representation of trade 0.101 was simple enough.


RE: Good for him
By A5un on 10/14/2007 12:42:02 AM , Rating: 3
Who else sells oil?

quote:
Canada (1.797 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.469 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.434 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.167 million barrels per day), Nigeria (0.890 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Algeria (0.520 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.460 million barrels per day), Angola (0.392 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.207 million barrels per day), and Kuwait (0.197 million barrels per day.


Well that was the figure for July 2007 from http://www.eia.doe.gov

Seeing that, we've pretty much got a deal with all oil producing countries. Sure the 0.46 million barrels a day demand from Iraq may eventually be distributed among all the other sources, but that's no guarantee. It's not like these oil-producing countries aren't already selling nearly at their maximum potential. Even if we manage to cover up the deficit, a delay to do so for just one week can cause serious damage to our reserve, which will require us to get even more oil from other source...etc. Your representation of trade is just elementary to not include time as a factor.

So yes, we're there in Iraq for oil ultimately. Sure we'd like to see the Talibans go away for good, but ultimately that's to contain the threats that Taliban brings to Iraq and their potential to influence. Like you said, self-interest will keep Iraq selling oil. But a Taliba-ruled Iraq will not sell oil to us in their self-interest, because their self-interest is to destroy us. It'd rather starve. And again, like you said, other countries will jump at this chance to increase their oil supply due to, again, self-interest. Yep, that's free market, too.

While getting rid of Hussein as a good thing, but we shouldn't have been the ones doing it. We should have given support to Iraqis to overthrow Hussein on their own, establish a government on their own, and live on their own - to not to have to worry about if they're gonna run into Blackwater contractors and get shot for the slightest suspicion of being a terrorist because Blackwater is exempt to all laws...


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 4:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Put down the conservative kool aid and ponder this:

It's not just an issue of "oh noes we want 10 barrels and they'll only sell us 9",
it's an issue of "we could have bought our 10 barrels from ANYWHERE and gotten a good price, but now we are FORCED to buy 10 barrels from ONE source.

The non-US bloc demand can buy their 10 barrels from EITHER the Iraq Supply or the Non-Iraq supply. Your basic laws of economics say they're going to buy from the CHEAPEST - thus, they might want to buy ALL Non-US Bloc demand.
This does, in fact, leave the US with zero barrels to buy.

Your scenario basically says "Oh, other countries will pay more just out of the kindness of their heart to buy the oil that the US can't purchase" in some sort of distorted arrangement for the exclusive benefit of the US.
Why exactly are they going to do this again?

A more accurate version of your scenario would note the price of oil being heavily bid up, and the US having to pay artificially high prices to secure the 10 barrels for their exclusive use vs. the other countries that aren't restricted.

Conservates think it's just a matter of "running out of oil" which is rather stupid -- it's more of an issue of "how much are you willing to pay for it".

Keep in mind that gasoline that costs $7/gallon is going to have a MAJOR impact on the US economy. In fact, if gasoline is priced high enough, it is effectively "unavailable" to large groups. Thus, just because they can go down to the store and buy it doesn't mean it is economical to do so.

*THIS* is the problem.

You are right that the free market will guarantee we will have gasoline, but you totally ignore that the free market would dictate we're going to pay a premium to do so, and the quantity of that premium could have a major adverse impact on our entire economy.
(given how integral energy is to our economy)


RE: Good for him
By rninneman on 10/14/2007 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously know next to nothing about economics.

If you were right that we went in to protect our oil prices, why is crude 3 times what it was before the war?

Output capacity of oil producing nations is not the problem; refining capacity is. If even one more oil refinery was built in the US, crude prices would begin to decline. But since no congressmen will sign off on a refinery being built in his district because it would be political suicide, there hasn't been a refinery built in the US since the 1970s! Yeah , it's been 30 years and while refining capacity is basically the same, demand has continued to grow.

Now, I can't finish economics 101 for you, but next time try learning about the issue rather than spouting liberal rhetoric.


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 6:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you were right that we went in to protect our oil prices, why is crude 3 times what it was before the war?


Just because you increase supply does not mean that demand has remained constant. If the world produces an extra 1 million barrels/unit time, and China announces they want to buy an extra 5 million barrels of oil/unit time, price is going to go up DESPITE increasing supply.

Additionally, you're focusing on short term consequences, as opposed to long term consequences.

quote:
Output capacity of oil producing nations is not the problem; refining capacity is.

A very good SHORT TERM analysis of the gasoline market. But what about long term?

Also, going to war to secure a source of oil doesn't automatically mean success. It's somewhat debatable whether or not you could consider Iraq "secure" or not, so obviously the success of the plan to secure additional oil is going to be related to the success of the actual war.

Obviously since we've got massive troop deployments over there currently, it's not exactly as secure as what was probably hoped/planned. Thus, the positive benefits aren't going to be as good as hoped/planned either.

Obviously, if Iraq was stabilized tomorrow and became a bastion of stability, US companies would be building over there like crazy to increase output. While I'm sure US companies are building over there now, obviously it takes a while to bring up Iraq's entire war-torn infrastructure up to speed.

quote:
even one more oil refinery was built in the US, crude prices would begin to decline.


Oil refineries take crude oil as an INPUT. The OUTPUT of oil refineries is gasoline, etc.
Building more refineries might reduce the cost of their OUTPUTS (gasoline), but it would not have a positive impact on the prices of their INPUTS (crude oil).

You're saying "Increasing demand for crude oil is magically going to lower the price of the supply of crude oil, despite the supply of crude oil remaining consant".

You fail.

quote:
Now, I can't finish economics 101 for you, but next time try learning about the issue rather than spouting liberal rhetoric.

It's understandable why you can't finish economics 101 for me, because you can't seem to finish it yourself.

If I'm spouting "liberal rhetoric", it seems obvious you are spouting "conservative ignorance".


RE: Good for him
By dl429 on 10/12/2007 8:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
By removing saddam hussein and posting up a pro-American government, US oil companies could have had first dibbs on developing untapped oil fields. Our oil companies could have told OPEC to shove their prices up their ass. Not to mention Saudi Arabia the number 1 oil producer in the world is very unstable. The pro-American royal family is teneously holding control. If they were to fall our economy is in deep trouble. Unless we have Iraq.


RE: Good for him
By ebakke on 10/16/2007 12:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any facts to back up your claims? What oil fields were tapped by US companies following the invasion? What company is gaining access to this oil, and how much revenues have they received from it?

Unless you have some facts, your statement is just worthless noise.


RE: Good for him
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 7:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you think that oil is important - try this on for size:

Water
Land
Breathable (moderatly clean) Air

Because once there is more in one place in the worls and none in another we will have wars that makes the WWI and WWII look like childrens games. If this happens due to GW or for some other reason is unimportant war it will be.

Now as i understand it AG got the price for reducing the risc of this war by working against GW. Other then that the Norwegian Nobel Commitee belives in GW there are few things that are to be understood from this choise.

Mit freundliche Grüsse
/F


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 10:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Gore didn't make any progress in resolving any issues that face mankind. Even if global warming is completely human-caused, what has he accomplished? Nothing.

He only furthered his own celebrity, possible political ambitions, and increased the amount of money he can charge for giving speeches. He acts modest, and he should be, since he doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize any more than you or I do.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
It seems you expect too much out of people. By your standards, probably no one could ever win the Nobel peace prize.

Lets take other nominees. How about Lech Walensa? What did he do that was so different from Gore that would make him deserve the peace prize? He was a spokeperson for the Solidarity movement, just like Gore was pretty much accepted as the spokeperson for battling global warming. That's all there's to it really. Do you think these people could have achieved what they did without thousands of other people helping them out?

Gore + UN receiving the peace prize is great for all the scientists who have also devoted their life to figuring this out. This is what they have worked for - they alerted the world that we're doing somethig wrong. The peace prize is the Nobel foundation's support of their work.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And guess what, most of those people who did real humanitarian efforts didn't make a cent off it either.

Ha! Sorry, but that's too funny. I think you should take another look at the people who won the prize. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:21:40 AM , Rating: 1
Ah yeah I missed the part where Mother Teresa had a three-episode guest appearance on "The Office." Good heads up.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, you didn't miss it. You did miss the 100 or so other laureates.

But hey, 1 out of 100 isn't bad.


RE: Good for him
By Spuke on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By jskirwin on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gore + UN receiving the peace prize is great for all the scientists who have also devoted their life to figuring this out
"All those scientists" haven't figured out anything yet, other than the climate changes constantly, and we still can't predict why, when, or how much. And even the scientists who support GW the most call Gore a dangerous alarmist who distorts their own work.

Why weren't any of those scientists chosen for this award?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 4
Read again why the Peace Prize exists, and who its supposed to be awarded to:
quote:
"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
Now tell me why a guy who got rich off of a movie proven scentifically inaccurate deserves this award?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
I know why the peace prize exists, but you don't seem to realize that the Nobel Prizes have evolved since Nobel's will. Did you know that there was no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics until the 1960s? Should we not have one? Time change, and the Nobel Prize as changed as well. There's no reason to quote Nobel's will since it has evolved over the last 100+ years.
quote:
Now tell me why a guy who got rich off of a movie

He didn't get rich off the movie. Its probably an extremely small portion of his wealth.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:23:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He didn't get rich off the movie.

How much do you think he got paid, so far, for that movie?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
Does it matter?

He was insanely rich before the movie came out. If Bill Gates won $500 million in PowerBall, it'd be just as silly to claim he got rich from PowerBall winnings.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does matter, at least in terms of the argument the OP was making. You are arguing semantics about whether he "got rich" off the movie or not, but the point the OP made is that he made a lot of money off the movie, which I believe to be true.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 5
Since you claim it matters, Gore's total earnings from the movie is $0.
quote:
Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of [our] profits from the movie and the book to a new bipartisan educational campaign that will run advertising and will be a presence in the mass media, to continue lifting this urgent crisis up for people to see and focus on.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/100222...

Again, what difference does it make? Now that you know he's not making money from it, does it change your view on Al Gore?


RE: Good for him
By deeznuts on 10/12/2007 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, what difference does it make? Now that you know he's not making money from it, does it change your view on Al Gore?


Nope, not until he rides at least commercial, stops using exorbitant amounts of electricity in his homes, rides a bike everywhere he can, etc.

Until then he's a fraud, plain and simple.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Gore didn't make any progress in resolving any issues that face mankind. Even if global warming is completely human-caused, what has he accomplished? Nothing."

Did you even read the article or the reasons why the Nobel comittee gave him the honor (BTW- this is not an uneducated or ignorant bunch)? "the Nobel Peace Prize committee showered him with praise for his work promoting climate awareness and climate research."

He did do that, and like it or not its a good thing.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's only a good thing if his conclusion is correct. If not, then it is just alarmist propaganda. And the jury's still out on that, e.g., many of the "facts" he states in the movie have already been clearly disproven.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
So we shouldn't try to reduce emissions until all of the science is in? Come on, it doesn't take a global catastrophe to know that even breathing exhaust is bad, and that in most major metropolitan areas smog is so think you cant clearly see the nearby hills without the fuzzy air in the way.

It also doesn't take a political science major to understand that we need to decrease our oil consumption to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (for our ecomomy, environment and future of both).

The only thing Gore is getting the honor for is spreading awareness. He did do that to alot of people that were otherwise unaware.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should reduce emissions up until the point of taking on huge economic costs

Let's also keep in mind that reducing CFCs is different than reducing something like CO2. I'm all for the former, but let's at least figure out if human-generate CO2 is doomsday before we destory the world economies first.


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 5:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm all for the former, but let's at least figure out if human-generate CO2 is doomsday before we destory the world economies first.


The problem is that not doing anything might result in destroying the world economies too.

This is one of the most convincing videos of the debate of global warming:
http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=38...


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, lets focus on today, but like I said. The honor was for spreading awareness.

For the sake of argument, lets disregard the subject of global warming for now... The dependency on foreign oil is a problem that exists today and will be a problem in the very near future, maybe 10-20 years, maybe a bit more. Disagree??? check the stock market, consumer confidence and all major financial indexes each time Opec raises the price on us. If we don't free ourselves from this dependency, when the oil reserves run low and Opec reduces output, the entire world's economy will collapse, causing a massive worldwide depression.

Smog is also an issue in many major cities today. We have regular smog alerts where elderly and people with breathing disorders like athsma are ordered to stay indoors. Even normal healthy people are urged to not go outside unless absolutely neccesary. This is in the SF bay area, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, and many others as well.

You can say global warming is just a "theory" and I agree with that, its not likely going to hurt us much (unless you own beachfront property - LOL) but these other issues are real, and are real today. Spreading social awareness and the concept of conservation is a good thing and if you disagree with that, you have major issues.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should reduce emissions up until the point of taking on huge economic costs


That is a reasonable statement, but the fact is most industries are lothed to do anything extra if they don't have to. Reducing emissions is not costly. That's just a lie. There are many technologies available today that not only reduce emissions but improve efficiencies. I'm specifically talking about coal generating plants. Many companies don't want to implement improvements because there is more profit in selling expensive electricity.

Coal gets little in way of subsidies. But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.

I must have missed that memo. Coal doesn't get subsidies, because the entire midwest sits on the largest coal deposit in the world.

Of course if you replaced Nuclear with ethanol, then I'd agree with what you're saying exactly.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 2:46:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Coal gets little in way of subsidies. But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.

Coal's subsidies are rather hidden, but they are ENORMOUS. Coal power plants have been estimated to cost the U.S. anywhere from $50B to $160B dollars per year in health care costs alone! That's money that ordinary citizens covering through either their medical insurance, increased hospital fees or through their taxes (approximately 45-50% of all U.S. health spending comes from taxes). That along is a subsidy that dwarfs all other electricity subsidies combined.

There are additional hidden subsidies for coal in the form of agricultural subsidies which are helping to make up for the reduced crop output of farmers due to pollution from coal plants. Obscure and hard to measure, but it's also in the billions of dollars per year. Even silly little things like window cleaning costs are increased due to air pollution from coal.

Cleaning up the waste from coal power is a tremendously expensive task that is totally subsidized, while for nuclear power the plants pay for cleaning up their own waste. If coal power plants had to pay to deal with their own waste then the cost of coal would be MUCH higher than that of nuclear and possibly even higher than that of wind power.


RE: Good for him
By A5un on 10/14/2007 12:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
About time someone looked at the real picture.


RE: Good for him
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 7:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes lets wait til all scientists are aboar...

The tobacco conglomerate still produced scientific papers showing that smoking wasn't harming you until a couple of years ago...

If we were to wait that long AND GW is true and happening we will be a race on its way to extinction together with a large part of the ecosphere...


RE: Good for him
By Procurion on 10/12/2007 12:48:02 PM , Rating: 3
Just because people argue that the science isn't bullet-proof doesn't mean that we aren't concerned about GW. What scares a lot of us is that in our own conceited way, humanity thinks they can change the earth's environment by rolling back the world to a pre-industrial state. Absolute horseshit.

There are how many more people in the world now? The very person identified as the lead man for the move produces more greenhouse gas a year than the output of 50 average families?

My thought is that instead of requiring everyone to use OLPC hand-cranked laptops to save the world, do something smart. Take the untold trillions of dollars we might spend to MAYBE influence the temperatures by one degree, and use the money and technology to develop solar, wind, and other energy sources so that the pollution stops. What a novel idea!

Instead, all the rabid "we're killing the world" followers want everyone to revert to the good old days..LOL-how much pollution do you think there would be if billions of people were burning wood for cooking, lighting and heating? Methane gas produced by the horses we'd be riding? Use technology to develop clean energy sources-get started today and quit wringing your hands while screaming "the sky is falling!"


RE: Good for him
By hrah20 on 10/12/2007 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 1
I think he would have been a very good president


RE: Good for him
By rcc on 10/12/2007 3:37:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is also awarded for resolving issues that face mankind.


Cool!! So the issue is resolved now? No more AGW, and we can get on with our lives??

Perhaps not.


RE: Good for him
By semo on 10/12/2007 10:55:07 AM , Rating: 5
climate change threatens resources. anything that prevents conflict arising from dwindling resources therefore brings peace.

i think that's the general idea


RE: Good for him
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 10/14/2007 12:41:32 AM , Rating: 1
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Questionable Quotes: Internet of Lies

Internet of Lies

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status:False.

Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/..." TARGET=cnn>interview</A> with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999.

When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the

technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.

(To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement. "


RE: Good for him
By McTwist on 10/15/2007 12:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Can we stop the bold?


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 10:51:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
He's devoted a lot of his life to this. Even his critics would probably agree that living in a world with less pollution is not a bad thing.

True, but someone needs to inform Gore that CO2 is not a pollutant. He doesn't seem to grasp that point.


RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, but a lot of the major contributors to CO2 cause other pollutants, so reducing the use of one will essentially reduce the other.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
Or we could just eliminate the other pollutants and skip the CO2 nonsense.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
Seeing as how CO2 emissions are linked to fossil fuels, and that our fossil fuel dependency - forgetting about global warming even - is a root cause of our precarious geopolitical situation at this time, I'd love to hear why you think efforts to curb fossil fuel dependency are a bad idea.


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 12:25:12 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest source of CO2 emissions (and pollution) in North America comes from burning coal. That coal is predominantly mined within the U.S. If you want to cut either air pollution or GHG emissions than coal power plants have to be the top priority, and that's going to do nothing for the politics of oil.

In fact, some have suggested replacing coal with natural gas (great for reducing pollution, reasonably good for reducing GHG emissions, potentially bad for cost though). This will actually make the political side of things worse as natural gas has already peaked in North America with the main new sources for it being Russia and Iran.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
But there's a common interest in oil, is there not? I think both environmentalists and forward-thinking policy makers alike can see the benefits there. There's no need for coal to be the first target, simply because it is the biggest, correct? But whatever your views on coal itself, the fact is that it behooves the US to develop along alternative lines anyway moving forward, as coal is not an infinite resource to begin with.

First oil, then coal, all the while developing alternative fuel infrastructure which both a) puts the US in a position of technology leadership and b) separates our fuel cycle from geopolitical concerns.

Certainly you can't disagree with this approach.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or we could just go nuclear, which has about a snowball's chance in hell of working as it doesn't appease Big Oil, Big Corn or Big Coal/Shale.

Yet if you wanted to eliminate CO2 and any other GHG nuclear is the only economic alternative.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 3
Nuclear is of course a part of what I am suggesting. (Though there are very real and costly waste disposal concerns)

And with the US set to begin building plants again, I think it's a step in the right direction. But it doesn't do anything to shift our dependence on foreign oil, something that needs to be addressed either way.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear is of course a part of what I am suggesting

Then I am glad we agree on something.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There's no need for coal to be the first target, simply because it is the biggest, correct?

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I'd like to point out the coal power plants in Northern Illinois alone have been linked to thousands of deaths.

I don't have the link on hand, but the study was pretty solid as I used it for a research paper once.

That has nothing to do with CO2 and is a platform I can get behind. If The Inconvenient Truth was a movie just about cleaning up some of these dirty plants I'd be the first person to congratulate him on his Peace Prize.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
There you go then, but that's the point.

There is no action against CO2 that does not hold ancillary benefits to the US elsewhere in either the economy, our health situation, or our global positioning. Which is why I can't understand the animosity folk hold towards CO2-related disucssions. Who cares why we're changing our fuel cycle, so long as we change it? There are a multitude of potential reasons to do so.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares why we're changing our fuel cycle, so long as we change it?


So the end justifies the means? Let's all believe a big lie because the auxiliary benefits are worth it?

I spent a lot of time in Europe in my teens and 20s. I don't like where your train of thought is going.


RE: Good for him
By clovell on 10/12/2007 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
If the ancillary benefits are so great, then push them, not the straw man. The people who don't just take the politicans' word for would have much less animosity towards a straight-forward approach.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 2:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... well, I don't think they're "lies" like you two do. I'm just saying there's a worthwhile cause here no matter what banner it flies under. And yes, if global warming panic is what is required to spur this action, whether you believe it or not, you should be grateful that the action is being spurred. Because it's certainly not actuating based on the geopolitical merits right now.


RE: Good for him
By clovell on 10/12/2007 4:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
To say to policticians that it's okay to manufacture hysteria over potential issues so long as your ends justify your means is playing with fire.

I suppose that's just going to remain a difference of opinion between us, Carl. Have a good weekend!


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
The thing with coal vs. oil is that coal is a bigger source of both pollution and greenhouses gases AND it's also an easier problem to fix. We already have solutions for a) cleaning up coal (scrubbers, they do nothing for GHG but greatly reduce pollution) and eliminating coal (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc.).

Oil is a much tougher problem to fix, at least for transportation uses. I'm all for trying to find alternatives here, but the problem is that oil just works so darn well that it's tough for most alternatives to compete, either economically or technically. One thing that would help would be to do more full costing of oil, taking into account the associated health costs as well as the diplomatic and military costs involved. If we did this then we would see that getting a gallon of gasoline really costs us a LOT more than the $3 we pay at the pump. However even at that it's not a full solution. Certainly ethanol from corn has more then it's share of problems, not the least of which being that it requires huge amounts of natural gas to grow which puts us right back in the same situation we were before (only instead of depending on Saudi Arabia and Canada for their oil, the U.S. will be depending on Iran and Russia for their natural gas).

As I said, oil is still a concern, but coal is a more immediate one in my mind.


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 4
That is not entirely true. The two sometimes (not always) come from the same source, but the solution for these problems is often quite different.

Case in point: Catalytic converters on our vehicles. These are designed to convert pollutants such as CO, NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons, etc. into CO2. Not only does the reduction in pollutants result in an increase in CO2, but also catalytic converters cause vehicles to be less efficient and burn more gasoline, creating yet more CO2.

Carbon sequestration results in the opposite. Because sequestration tends to really hurt the efficiency of a system, more fuel needs to be burned. If all else is equal that means more pollution. The carbon gets sequestered, reducing CO2, but the pollution does not.

So, which is more important, pollution or global warming? Well most estimates place the number of people killed every year from air pollution in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. Global warming, on the other hand, is estimated to kill a few thousand in summer and save a few tens of thousands in the winter. This is why I say focus on reducing pollution first and foremost. If we can reduce greenhouse gases at the same time, all the better, but cleaning up the air and water has to be the top priority in my books.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CO2 is a pollutant.

As is oxygen. However, since neither are particularly toxic and both are required for life, I think the distinction set forth by the OP is warranted.

quote:
We also know how much CO2 "human activity" is adding to the earth's atmosphere.

It's 2.5% of global output, by the way. That's assuming we don't get a major volcano eruption that year though.


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 2:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CO2 is a pollutant.

Under any classical definition of pollutant, no it's not. It is totally non-toxic in much, MUCH larger quantities than what is in our atmosphere today. From an immediate or long-term health perspective it is totally benign.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is something rather different than a pollutant. It causes global climate change, but that is something VERY different than pollution. If we don't understand the differences between these two issues we're pretty much doomed when it comes to solving either one.


RE: Good for him
By AnnihilatorX on 10/15/2007 3:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
human made CO2 is usually emitted by processes that generate other pollutants. If we reduce fossil fuel burning, general pollution will also reduce in conjunction with CO2s, such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides as well as smog particles.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/16/2007 8:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
That may be true, but we're talking about CO2 here.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/12/2007 11:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you saw the new episode of South Park.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/2007 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Of course. The creators of South Park deserve a Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore. At least they make people laugh.


RE: Good for him
By JarvisTheGray on 10/12/2007 11:33:37 AM , Rating: 5
Dude, give Al a break, he's very busy trying to find man-bear-pig.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/2007 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 1
Not very hard. It's running for President under an alias. Hillary Clinton.

I'm totally serial.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:15:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize as much as there needs to be a record kept for the largest crap anyone's ever taken.

Where is Bono when you need him?


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 11:29:40 AM , Rating: 1
I know you don't like him, I honestly don't care too much for him either, but give him cred where it is due. Read the 1st paragraph of the article "The Nobel Peace Prize committee showered him with praise for his work promoting climate awareness and climate research."

He did do that, and raised alot of eyes to being more environmentally conscious (whether his mansion is old an inneficient or not), and thats alot more than most people,politicians, scientists, etc. have done.

Now go back to the desk and start researching which republican you will vote for in 2008. I am sure one of them has some good ideas and policies that you will be perfectly in line with. LOL.


RE: Good for him
By Spuke on 10/12/2007 11:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now go back to the desk and start researching which republican you will vote for in 2008.
Ah yes! Only republicans can disagree with democrats. We can't just simply have our own minds and make decisions based on our own beliefs and/or knowledge. I'm not a republican nor a democrat and care for neither group.

I vote but I'm not a (people's) party member. I am quite capable of disagreeing with anyone or any subject I choose. And I don't need a secret agenda to do it. And I don't need a politician to tell me or assist me or provide information to me about what I will believe in today.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the republican part of the post was a comment meant for FitCamaro. Not to all reps.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/2007 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 1
Already know who I'm gonna vote for.


RE: Good for him
By Ringold on 10/12/2007 4:02:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now go back to the desk and start researching which republican you will vote for in 2008.


My mother, a lifelong democrat who voted for only two Republican's in her life, Barry Goldwater for President and Mel Martinez for some local position (his competitor was corrupt if I recall, and she didn't want to not vote at all), is probably going to make 2008 the third time total and second time for President in her life of 64 years she'll vote Republican. She thinks Hillary is posessed by Satan, see's that Obama has no experience and that Edward's obsession with the poor is misguided.

That said, she was born in Kentucky and seems influenced by the dieing breed of Blue Dog Democrats. The party has left it's roots so far behind that even though she staunchly and honestly denies it she's almost a libertarian Republican more so than she is a Democrat -- she thought the attempted political assasination of Lieberman, for example, was one of the most shameful things she'd seen her party do. She'll go to the grave a Democrat but she's not enitrely blind.

You can try to spin this and many things as a straight down the party line sort of issue but it's not at all, not when political battle lines can swing so far. I raised this simply as an example that disagreeing, especially with ultra-left wing groups or ideologies, does not necessarily equate to starry-eyed adoration for George Bush.


RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yes.....devoted a lot of his life to this....since he lost the election in 2000.....and was out of public attention......


If I remember correctly, Al Gore has been an environmentalist for decades...


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well that would be true if Democrat == Environmentalist... but we both know that's not true.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree with that. Unless you have a different meaning of "environmentalist", Al Gore's been active in terms of supporting and promoting environmental awareness/measures well before 2000... as far back as the late 70s even.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 6:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well it's understandable considering he has more free time... I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you saying that in order to be considered an "environmentalist" you must be that 100% of the time? The point of the matter is, Al Gore's involvement in environmental awareness is not a spur-of-the-moment-because-it's-trendy thing.


RE: Good for him
By GoodBytes on 10/12/2007 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not against his wining the Nobel prise, but

Shame its only focused was on air...
What about water? What about the energy efficient light bulb packed with mercury? How does that help in any way?
What about hundred of company happy but this trend of having everything focus on air pollution, so they continue to save a bit of money per day by dumping all their waists into our water?


RE: Good for him
By borowki on 10/12/2007 12:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
And what better way to further the cause than to become the president of the US? I hope he runs.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 1:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Gore realizes that if he runs, it will be a political disaster for the Democrats. He would split the vote with Clinton, handing the Republicans a likely victory.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 1:13:20 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing will hand reps a victory this time around, short of fixing the problem in Iraq which cant be done at this point, its too late.

It really doesn't matter who wins the dems nomination, Clinton, Obama, or even Gore. Whoever it is will be the next prez. The reps have no-one, and no confidence among voters. They keep pushing fear and 9/11 rhetoric which finally wore out over the past 2 years.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing will hand reps a victory this time around, short of fixing the problem in Iraq which cant be done at this point, its too late.

The presidency is Hilary's to lose at this point.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno... I think Rudi or Paul would make extremely interesting candidates. At least much more interesting than Obama, for example (Clinton... I see her as something of a wildcard... you never know if she'll get more votes than she gives to the opposition).

This may be a very interesting election, depending on how the primaries turn out.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 3
We shouldn't elect any president who thinks we can simply pull all our troops out of Iraq. That's just stupid, and any candidate that thinks it is realistic is either an idiot or a liar.

The next president has to find a way to resolve the situation with Iraq, and then - and only then - can our troops come home.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 2:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. Now that the damage is done, we are going to have to stick to it, and find a solution.

Sad but true that as you say "the next president has to find a way to resolve the situation with Iraq" Why cant this president do that? We still have another 15 months of him in office, but its pretty clear he won't do anything and is not going to admit his major blunder and will leave the mess for the next president. Shameful, and should be criminal neglect.

The very least we can do is not elect the same type of idiot that would get us in the same situation again.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 2:40:29 PM , Rating: 1
my god man, what kind of drugs are you on? You really scare me. It is this mentality that got Bush elected and took our country into the shitbox to begin with. MOST people, even those that voted for him are realizing that this mentality is outdated, fear based and retro-evolutionary. I hope for the day you will join us.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 2:47:49 PM , Rating: 3
I don't quite recall this bizarre scenario you're depicting under Bill Clinton's watch - I remember having a pretty good life. If you're saying that you prefer the present administrations fiscal policies to Clinton's, then by all means best of luck to your candidate, but I recommend a mental check-up.

Hillary is nothing if not pragmatic; if you think she's going to jack your taxes the minuts she hits the chair I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Hell even conservative op-ed writers are pro-Hillary insofar as the Democratic candidates go. And it's worth noting she's against an immediate troop pullout, if that's your primary concern.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 1
"I think you've been watching too much Fox News"

Indeed he has, and swallows it too.

Its funny the things they blame on Bill Clinton. Life was great under him, record prosperity not seen since hte 1950's. I remember when GW was elected, and not yet in office he immediatly kept repeating that the economy was going to take a dive and it wasn't his fault. Sure enough things were bound to decline from the years of positive progress under Clinton, but when the leader of the free world constantly repeats how bad things are about to get it KILLS Consumer confidence and people stop buying, making matters much much worse. Ack! what a retard we elected.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 3:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
It could be argued that the economic conditions that existed during the Clinton Administration were put in place by changes made by Reagan and to a lesser extent Bush Sr. Remember, many of the policies put into effect by presidents can take several years to come to fruition.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 3:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, some things carry over, but you cant deny Clinton was a master at finance and the economy. Reagan did very well too, a very different method, but effective. The first Bush and last Bush are both awful. They are totally clueless with regards to the economy. The first one denied we were even in a recession and did nothing to help, the last one spread panic before he even got to office constantly saying the economy will take a major downturn, putting fear into everyone and single handedly killing consumer confidence which kills the economy when people stoop buying goods. This simply put 1 paragraph post is already far beyond GW's ability to understand.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/2007 3:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I watch the Daily Show.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... Things you say do sound a lot like Stephen Colbert... The thing is, he is joking when he says it ;)


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By borowki on 10/12/2007 2:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not if he is the candidate instead of Hillary. Gore would be a much more formidable opponent for the Republicans.


RE: Good for him
By amandahugnkiss on 10/12/2007 2:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree he would be a stronger candidate for the Democrats. I found it hilarious when I saw that Hillary and Obama were the two strongest runners at this point. To me it almost looks like they're trying to lose. At the very least I feel they're throwing away any possible converted Republican votes that they may have gotten if they had a serious candidate in the mix, and they'rte going to need those to win. Not that these candidates are not serious about their endeavor, but jeeze, I'm fairly close to platform agnostic and there is not a chance in hell I'd put Hillary in there .


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 2:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point, they are a bit week, but look at the rep side. Even weeker. The front runner is Giuliani, his platform is what... "I was mayor on 9/11" LOL thats about all he's got, that and trying to put the fear of terrororism into the week minded.

Current polls will show you that in a free election right now, if there were no 1 per party nomination, the front runners would be in order...

1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards
4. Giuliani

Polls also clearly show that if the 2 front runners (Clinton and Giuliani) do win their parties nomination, then Clinton will win the main election by a large margin. No worries about a close call like the let few.

I don't really like her either, but the candidate pool is week, making her look strong.


RE: Good for him
By FITCamaro on 10/12/2007 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'll likely be voting for Mitt Romney.

- For a secure border and enforcing our immigration laws
- Against pulling out of Iraq before we should
- Against excessive spending
- For alternative energy sources
- For more education spending
- Against nationwide health care that would be paid for off the backs of the middle class
- For traditional family values (I'm not religious mind you)
- For keeping existing tax breaks and expanding them

Depending on how far Ron Paul goes, I might vote for him. But I don't agree with his position on Iraq.

Polls are about as worthless as Al Gore's points in his "documentary".

And it's spelled "weak".


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 8:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen Ron Paul on a few talk shows, and I really like what he has to say - he makes alot of sense and seems human. Many politicians have lost that quality and no longer remember what it is like to be a normal person.


RE: Good for him
By hashish2020 on 10/14/2007 4:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
Or they may agree he won this award despite his massive carbon footprint and his hypocrisy.


RE: Good for him
By Christopher1 on 10/14/2007 5:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
I don't disagree with his "A world with less pollution is better!' What I disagree with is the fearmongering that he and others do, saying that "If we don't start changing things radically, the world is coming to an end!"

That's what I disagree with, the fearmongering that he is doing. If he just said "People, we should start pushing for more gas and energy efficient things to make the world better for our children!" I would support him 150%! But not when he is fearmongering.


RE: Good for him
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/14/2007 10:05:26 PM , Rating: 1
he uses 10 times more energy than the average American - and yet here he is on his high horse telling us to use less energy.

While I'm working my butt off to make a buck he's out there spewing crap, getting paid millions on it, and he doesn't even believe it himself. Excuse me for not believing a word he says him being a hypocrite and all.

i conclude with this:

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists [Dr William Gray] has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a...


about time...
By Verran on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: about time...
By teriba on 10/12/2007 10:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of retards in here! He never said he invented the Internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp


RE: about time...
By Screwballl on 10/12/2007 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
exactly. he seems to be such a smart guy on everything...

I just hate that this complete and total buttface used lies and deception to get himself undeserved awards. He is a politician after all so its no surprise but he definitely does not deserve any of these awards. I guess maybe the Oscar for his acting (like he cares about anything but a paycheck).

This is the same guy spending $12,000 a month on wasted electricity on his TN home. Same guy using a private jet for all these "jogs" to overseas locations rather than using commercial jets. Same guy who has an entourage of 10 full size SUVs attending his functions.

Look up the word hypocrite and there's his picture.


RE: about time...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
I just read an article in the FT about how the Salvation Army (among others) was passed up for the 11th time in a row for the Peace Prize.

Good job Al. As if his ego wasn't large enough already.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore's the man, and frankly climate changes and their effect on palatable water supplies is a huge aspect of armed conflict on continents such as Africa. I can't understand the ridicule piled onto this guy, and the feeling that all he does is opportune.

Inconvenient Truth wasn't *his* idea, y'know? It's a presentation he'd been giving independently for years. And so a director sees it, becomes inspired, and approaches him about making a movie. Frankly I'm not even interested in what aspects of the presentation are factually off - the truth is there's no unified global warming model and everyone disagrees with everyone else on nearly everything; one need only read the global warming related news on this site to witness that.

But the point is, Gore's film catapulted the public awareness on the subject to a new level, and if you think it's an actual issue of merit - as I do - then you're grateful for his efforts. If you're someone that thinks Global Warming is some BS hoax, then yes you probably hate Gore. But Gore wasn't seeking out the limelight when he started these speeches... the limelight just came his way.

I don't understand the Gore revulsion on this website at all, it seems way overblown.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 11:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
You're not interested that the man lied about many of the effects of global warming?

Yeah, spreading awareness on the issue isn't a bad thing, but the alarmism and the lies hurt science as a whole - on both sides of the debate.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it didn't hurt science as a whole - what are you talking about? For the average person all that happened is that before where they might not have been concerned about global warming, now they are. The average person didn't understand the science before, they don't understand it now, and they won't understand it in the future. What they understand is whether there is or is not an issue, and whether vectors which they can control play a role.

Not to mention, it's a little much to say Gore lied; I fully believe that all that he said he himself considers the truth, and as I mentioned before that's par for the course in the climate debate - everyone has a different angle.

If the film hurt science, I'd love to know how.


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 12:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
I may have not hurt "science," but it certainly did hurt the public's understanding of this scientific topic by spreading misinformation.

The UK court did a nice job summarizing some of the errors made in the movie:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/228...

Scroll down to paragraph #24.

Movies about scientific topics should be filled with facts, not FUD.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Again, science has not been hurt - nor has it's understanding among the public. Ask someone on the street to recant to you the science behind Inconvenient Truth, see how that goes for you. People as a mass grab onto ideas, not facts (unfortunately), and the idea behind Inconvenient Truth is a noble one IMO. So, I restate that the public understanding has not been affected, because it remains exceedingly high-level in their minds.

Now as for the court case... have any of you guys touting that thing actually read it? First of all, the case is brought up under the context of the film being political as it pertains to British education, that is the grounds for the case. Going further, none of Gore's assertions are disproven, they are simply cited as non-provable at this point. And that is a huge difference.


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most people probably believe that AGW is causing polar bears to become extinct, for example. Would you call that an increase or a decrease in accurate public understanding.

Yes, I read the case - the court recognized basically that the movie was political and was based on a number of scientific errors. I only referenced it because it contained a convenient summary of the known errors.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your understanding of the court case; it states that the film has become political in how it is being used, not that it's origins were political.

Secondly, it doesn't highlight any "errors" of science, what it highlights is that these at yet remain unproven hypothesis.

Thirdly, speaking to polar bear extinction, are you saying then that you would believe that view you claim has been adopted by the populace to be an incorrect one?


RE: about time...
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/14/2007 10:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
you're an idiot.

My proof:

You mention you disagree with the film becoming political and then say it wasn't being political at start.

It's the same thing. No one cares what it once was because the now is that it's political. Perhaps their intentions was to make it political just took time to get there.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 12:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
It broke scientific standards of ethics. It casts further doubt on scientific rigor and science's ability to accurately ascertain the truth.

Your claim that people are too dumb to understand the science, so it doesn't matter how awareness is raised is ridiculous, elitist, and demeaning. Not everyone ignores the details. It's still very debately whether 'vectors which [average people] can control' play a role - but due to the methods through which the awareness of this potential issue was raised, the people's mind has been decided for them before the issue has been put to rest by science.

It's equally ridiculous to think that I'm going too far when I say he lied. Truth is not a matter of intention - it is a matter of fact. It doesn't matter whether Al Gore was demonically possessed, or spreading sunshine and rainbows through force of will; he lied. There is no angle here. The conclusions he drew were clearly not supported by the facts and yet he represented them as such. That's lying.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:33:08 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I don't agree with your understanding of the word "lie," but I do accept fully your accusation that I am 'elitist.' ;)

And again, the conclusions he draws *do* stem naturally from the observations, the question as yet is have they been proven or not. But what, you want to wait until then to begin acting? This is a controlled experiment that would play out over hundreds/thousands of years - be pragmatic. When Gore released the film, it was to the general praise of the scientific community. I'll let them be the arbiters of what is considered prudent or not, rather than someone who is obsessed with Gore's "lies."


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And again, the conclusions he draws *do* stem naturally from the observations, the question as yet is have they been proven or not.
No, conclusions must be drawn from data. The data do not support the conclusions. The conclusions are false. If you don't like my vernacular use of the word lie, then we can use scientific misconduct. This isn't obsession - it's a fact. If I'm obsessed with anything, it's the truth.

I understand that it's not pragmatic to wait for a controlled experiment. It's not pragmatic, either, to think that scientific misconduct is of no concern to the scientific community - which, contrary to your belief, is accepted by the concensus of sceintists as imprudent and damaging.

Would you like to address the issue further now, or do you have more personal attacks to throw at me?


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 2:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
Personal attacks? Oh, an elitist like me never lacks for those Clovell. ;)

But to the topic, the conclusions are no more false than they are true, and the data supports the conclusions at least on a cursory basis. The problem here lies in that the data does not prove the conclusions. But science at present is no more capable of proving these facets on the whole than it is of disproving it, and until the assertions are dis-proven, who are you to say the conclusions are false?

I'm a big fan of the truth. I'm an even bigger fan of not holding myself beholden to a structure so far as to not be able to see the forest for the trees. If Gore's film is alarmist, it is because he is alarmed - I share his feeling of alarm. Frankly I saw the film with several scientists, and none of them seemed to be up in arms over the methods. If we're talking about the scientific "consensus," I'd say the consensus among the majority of scientists is that human action contributes to global warming... why don't we discuss that for a moment, eh?


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the consensus among the majority of scientists is that human action contributes to global warming

How did they reach that conclusion?

I disagree, I think most believe in the easier-to-prove fact that global warming is happening, not that it is human-induced. I've yet to see anything close to a convincing argument for the latter.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
You're not seeing a convincing argument isn't the same as contradicting that this is nevertheless what the majority of scientists believe based on their observations. It is, afterall, the consensus view - and this is not in dispute.


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:50:57 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't answer the question - how did they reach the conclusion that global warming is human-induced?

If you can't answer that question, then you have no credible right to argue on behalf of that viewpoint. I can explain nearly everything that I believe in - can you?


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 3:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
I find it ironic that you and clovell have spent the majority of this topic attacking Gore for defying "science," and yet when I highlight the 'inconvenient truth' that the majority of scientists in fact share the view that man contributes to global warming, it essentially becomes: 'prove it.'

It can't be proven right now, we already recognize that as inherent to the debate, do we not? These scientists came to these collective conclusions based on years of data gathering showing a correlation between temperature, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and human levels of contribution to those CO2 levels. There have been numerous international conferences, meetings of scientists, and otherwise... and this is, has been, and remains the consensus. The problem is that you already know that, but you're more interested in undermining credibility (the right to argue on behalf? wtf) than you are in simply granting Gore even the slightest bit of nod in terms of his putting out there what actually *is* a problem the majority of scientists feel is real.

I'm sure you can argue 'what you believe' all day long - I'm happy to argue with you. But you are no more able to disprove his assertions than he is able to prove them.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 3:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't ask you to prove it, Carl B. I also didn't claim Gore defied science; I think he knowingly misrepresented it in certain places. I'm not very concerned with Gore's credibility, and I certainly don't have to work to undermine it.

The point is not who is wrong or who is right. It's that, in science, when you claim something as true, you need to support it. Gore didn't do that. I'm not trying to take away from his award here - if you recall, I'm simply having a hard time understanding your decision to ignore that Gore's methods were less than ideal.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 3:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
No you didn't, but Tom did (asked me to prove it).

And now it'd certainly be nice if he acknowledged that indeed the majority of scientists feel that humankind contributes to global warming.


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 4:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

No, of course I don't agree to that. And I don't see how you can believe it either if you can't explain it.


Nevermind that I did explain it - obviously such is not an actual concern of yours.

quote:
Basically you're telling me that there's no data to believe it, but scientists - people who more than others form their beliefs based on actual facts and observations - believe in it anyway. Are you nuts?


Uh... are you nuts? What I'm telling you is that the majority of scientists - people who more than others form their beliefs based on actual facts and observations - believe that humankind contributes to global warming based on their observations. The same as the majority of them believe in the *theory* of relativity. This is extremely well documented at this point. What follows is but one example:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...


RE: about time...
By rogard on 10/12/2007 9:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%, but unfortunately what you lay down does not seem to be the central issue.

We will probably never even see the day when the majority of scientists is sure about man-made global warming, not even if the temperature in the Antarctic has reached 30 °C. So no point in waiting for that and do nothing. There are enough alarming signs that cannot be ignored.
People who simply deny the necessity of further scientific research AND serious thinking about what could be done to avoid grave consequences that could happen are outright dangerous. Unfortunately there are millions of them(us?). Nobody wants to go through any kind of hardships, so the first reaction is denial. People will go west still believing they weren't responsible. Even if there was rock solid scientific evidence, they(we?) would just ignore it. Power of human mind. Bummer.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 3:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Structure is a main part of the scientific method. It allows us to discern and discriminate between truth and folly.

I've maintained, very explicitly, in this entire thread, that Gore's raising awareness on the issue was a good thing; I can see clearly the forest. What I take issue with, is the methods he has used. They are deceptive.

As for the level of support that the data provide, I'd encourage you to read through the recent judgment concerning Gore's film in the UK. Many of those errors cited simply cannot be reconciled with the data available as the data either does not go so far as to address them or blatantly contradicts them. I'm not saying the conclusions are untrue (I don't have to). At this point, though, is a farce, and scientific misconduct, to claim that they are true.

So, to clarify my position, when speaking scientifically, claiming something is true when there is no evidence to support it is scientific misconduct. That's regardless of the eventual validity of the statement.

Your acquittal of Gore's actions on account of his personal feelings on the issue are funny. Science is objective, and it is judged objectively. Personal feelings on the subject are often referred to as bias, and can have significant impacts on the results of an experiment and cast doubt on its validity.

As for concensus, proof via democracy is no proof at all. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 3:43:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for the level of support that the data provide, I'd encourage you to read through the recent judgment concerning Gore's film in the UK. Many of those errors cited simply cannot be reconciled with the data available as the data either does not go so far as to address them or blatantly contradicts them.

I'll respond to this with something I wrote above when the court case was brought up:

Now as for the court case... have any of you guys touting that thing actually read it? First of all, the case is brought up under the context of the film being political as it pertains to British education, that is the grounds for the case. Going further, none of Gore's assertions are disproven, they are simply cited as non-provable at this point. And that is a huge difference.

If there is a stretch going on, the stretch is that the UK has somehow shot down Gore's movie based on the conclusions the film reached. Not at all. Rather, it states that given that the conclusions are unproven by the evidence in the film or otherwise, that it is being deemed a political film in the context of showing it in the school system.

quote:
As for concensus, proof via democracy is no proof at all. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.


Proof via democracy is absolutely not proof at all... if it were the issue of global warming I was discussing. But specifically rather, it was the proof as to what the majority of scientists believe, in which case majority/democracy absolutely is proof.

And as it is indeed the case that the majority of the scientific community believes this - individuals no less passionate about the scientific method than anyone else present here. It thus follows naturally that Gore is not acting rogue or in contravention to the scientific norm in doing this film, in any sense other than he claims as 'fact' what should in a formal science position be deemed theory.

BUT, that is not Gore's role to play; it *is* a theory believed by the majority, the implications *are* grave if that scientific majority is correct, and thus a call to action is the rightful act of a politician believing so.

To say that Gore is acting in contravention of the scientific community, that is the logical fallacy here.


RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Funny, that seems to contradict the purpose of your repeated assertion that "most" scientists believe in AGW.


Uh... did you stop reading there, or did you continue on to the next sentence? It doesn't contradict anything, as I plainly stated that in this particular case 'majority' was in fact the proof I was providing itself.

quote:
How are those outright lies and exaggerations not a contravention of the scientific community?


Because the majority of the scientific community agrees with the premise of the film, and praise its role in highlighting the issue? ;)

And further, you keep falling back on this refrain of "facts" that are in fact "made up." They may not be facts, but they *are* perfectly valid observations, and what else are theories built around if not observations?


RE: about time...
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 9:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
Do you (Tomz) in any way earn your living trolling against GW???

I have read miterpresantaions from you that makes no sense to me in another way than that you do have an agenda...


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 5:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Carl, I've read through the judgement, and I still find that the some of those nine errors the judge pointed out just do not gel with the facts. Stuff like attributing Hurricane Katrina to AGW, or claiming an exact fit between the rise of both CO2 and GW, or the shutting down of the ocean conveyor due to GW. The first has no evidence to back it up - I don't honestly think any could ever be gathered to prove or disprove the idea. The second is just wrong - no amount of further data can save face here. There simply is no exact fit. The third has been dubbed as extremely unlikely by the IPCC.

I'm not going to make any claim that the judgement invalidated the movie - it certainly did not. It did, however, highlight some of the wackier claims that Gore has made on AGW.

Certainly, a call to action is warranted - I don't think it's good to take an issue with such widespread ramifications for granted. I also concur that Gore is passionate about this cause, and if I step back for a moment and take his position for granted, I see that something certainly needs to be done. However, I think that there are instances where he has let that passion cloud his reasoning, and where his personal bias has crept into what he claims as fact or truth.

Still, I'm not damning him for it here or his argument. I just don't think these comments are something that should be overlooked or ignored. I think it works against him and clouds the core issue.


RE: about time...
By Murst on 10/12/2007 12:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
How has he harmed science?

I guess the only way I could see a scientist harming science is if they pulled funding, but Gore certainly has not done that.


RE: about time...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not now, it's later when someone really does have real solutions to real climate-change problems, but the world is already jaded to false promises by this megalomaniac.

Or when said narcissist puts theories to test with good intentions, but bad results. Kyoto being a prime example.


RE: about time...
By Murst on 10/12/2007 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that it hurts science because of some hypothetical situation is silly.

Saying that Kyoto hurt science is also wrong. It provided funding for and against AGW theories. It only helped advance science.


RE: about time...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying that it hurts science because of some hypothetical situation is silly.

How is that hypothetical? That's the exact reason why anti-alarmists exist -- the real research is being overlooked and we're going to need it someday.


RE: about time...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
RE: about time...
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 12:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying that Kyoto hurt science is also wrong. It provided funding for and against AGW theories. It only helped advance science.

Kyoto also has a high economic cost, diverted resources and attention from real problems, and so far completely failed to accomplish its goal.

Maybe it did promote science somewhat in the way you describe, but overall it has to be viewed as a failure.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 12:26:17 PM , Rating: 1
The issue is one of public policy which is supposed to be based on science. This happens in the sector of public health, too. By taking attention away from the scientific debate and converting it to attention to the political debate, you do a disservice to science. Science is not decided by platforms or political hyperboles. Science is decided by facts and rigor. The facts deserve more attention than the spin.

In other words, this is a red herring that draws attention away from the issue of whether AGW is an issue.


RE: about time...
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 10:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunatly policy is not determined by science... It is determined by "the easiest way to get the votes-quote" (how i wish it wasn't). It is not even Supposed to be determined by science, but it is supposed to be determined by enlightend ppl who has the time and possibility to delve into the issues that the ordinary man on the street can'/won't/doesnt have possibility to handle and then make the best of it in disregard of own welfare and the public vote.
Well the ppl get the leaders they deserv - the rotten ones who tell nice bedtime stories and don't make a fuzz and also doesn't disturb the Status Quo even if its needed.


RE: about time...
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How has he harmed science?
A lot of scientists say Gore's inaccurate, biased film has harmed science. See this NYT article for just a few of them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.h...


RE: about time...
By Murst on 10/12/2007 12:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
So where is the harm?


RE: about time...
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not understand the concept of science? Its the search for truth. When someone makes obviously untrue and inaccurate claims, that harms science. When that person claims "scientists" are making those claims, its even worse.

Still worse is when the public finds out those claims are false, and blames "scientists", when it wasn't their fault in the first place. Then they start distrusting and ignoring the *real* claims scientists make.

That harms science very much indeed.


RE: about time...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
It goes without saying that Gore's film has helped to foster both the debate and research surrounding what is a topic of crucial significance to the human race, whether caused by man or not. Now - I find it hard to see where this film has hurt science seeing as how the above has been the direct effect of its release.

It's also a little disturbing that you imply scientists are this or scientists are that; there *are* a lot of scientists that agree with exactly what Gore presented, and the statement that the facts presented were "untrue" or "inaccurate" goes only as far as your own personal disagreement with them, because they remain hypothetical either way at the moment.

Scientists contradict each other quite frequently on unsettled matters of controversy; how is this film somehow separate in your mind from "real" claims scientists make? Have scientists not made these exact claims?


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 1:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not the exact same ones Gore made. Scientists base conclusions on data. They contradict each other with data.

The statement that certain conclusions Gore presented were not supported by the data is not really a matter of personal preference. This is modern Catholicism - you don't get to pick and choose what's right and wrong. This is science. It is revised and it is debated, but it is done so with facts, not alarmism.


RE: about time...
By Murst on 10/12/2007 1:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, search for truth (or search for understanding, knowledge). This is done through trial and error, educated guesses, and luck. Even if Gore's claims are later proven false, it in now way has hurt science. What matters is that Gore has put a spotlight on this research.


RE: about time...
By clovell on 10/12/2007 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give it one last go before I accept our difference of opinion here, Murst. I can agree that raising awareness on the issue is a good thing. Our disagreement is whether or not the conclusions Gore has drawn from the data hurt science.

Gore's comments have put the spotlight more on his wild conclusions than on the research. Conclusions that are not supported by the data. Now, you may think this is no big deal, but let me tell you a similar story.

Years ago, Merck released the drug Vioxx onto the market, heralding it as a major achivement in the pharmacuetical industry. Later, it would be revealed that Vioxx was unsafe, and Merck's claims to the contrary were not supported by the data. Vioxx, was of course, recalled - although it still did a lot of good for many people. Today, similar medications take longer to come to the market because the FDA has a much more rigorous review process.

I know one day the scientific community will come to a concensus on AGW that is supported by fact. I feel that these alarmist comments made by Gore have delayed the coming of that day. To me, that matters.


RE: about time...
By Murst on 10/12/2007 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think its best to agree to disagree. :)


RE: about time...
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/14/2007 10:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
sure the spotlight is on al gores research but it reverts the resources to fund more important research that needs to be done.

Scientist already know that al gore is wrong. The funding is being used to report bad data to support gore who is wrong.

The amount of money being wasted to try and support al gore's theory could be used to cure cancer, aids, Alzheimer's, funding to produce massive amounts of food, technology to remove salt from salt water andm ake itr drinkable, funding for a satellite that can predict hurricanes accurately and so on.

There is a paradigm shift in many parts of the world that believe everything gore says is true. What that means is this. whatever anyone says about global warming, with gore being wrong, anything scientist say about it will be criticized. Being called deniers and threatened with their life. The truth about the matter will never be known until a brave scientist comes out on national television and gives a really nice speech about the matter. Even then scientists have to stop being afraid and step up.

So yes it harms science. it is amazing to me how you don't see how it harms science to report inaccuracies and then threaten scientists who tell you that you're wrong with their lives.


RE: about time...
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 10:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry Porkpie Sience is not about finding the Truth. It is about excluding all other possibillities and then hoping that we haven't missed any to large probabillities in the process.

The Thruth is found in peoples heads and only there (and even there its mostly false)


RE: about time...
By Screwballl on 10/12/2007 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
Gore is a smart man who has used lies and deceit to gain notoriety. The more the spotlight is on him, the farther away from the real and true facts his speech becomes.
This is not about awareness, man has had little to no impact on global warming compared to natural ecological changes that this planet goes through.
National Geographic even called him on his lies in the movie

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/06...

How about the very IPCC that got this Nobel is losing key figures due to the propaganda and political agenda rather than sticking with the facts?

http://www.americandaily.com/article/17656

There are plenty of resources pointing to either direction. I just believe that this is natural global cycle and has nothing to do with man.


RE: about time...
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/14/2007 10:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just global a lot of it has to do with cosmic rays and sun rays as well that effect weather on planets.

there's a lot we don't know about the universe and its effect on planets.


Yeah...
By iFX on 10/12/2007 10:31:17 AM , Rating: 4
It's takes a lot of devotion to make stuff up, twist existing data that already existed that you had nothing to do with gathering, and put it in a movie so you can make millions of dollars.

Forgive me if I do not shake hands.




RE: Yeah...
By jacarte8 on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah...
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
BTW: That sounded like a Derek Zoolander rant.
"No matter how many people you leave dead and bloodied along the way, so long as you can continue to be an investigatory journalist"


RE: Yeah...
By SiliconAddict on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah...
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 5
Wow... speaking of FUD

20 years huh? Maybe it's time for me to move to Maine then... I like my winters mild, but it's just too hot here in VA in the summers.

I've noticed all the crazy Cat 5 hurricanes the past 2 years too... scary!

You need to take a deep breath, pull Inconvenient Truth out of the DVD player and just mellow out for a while.


RE: Yeah...
By Icec0o1 on 10/12/2007 11:03:21 AM , Rating: 4
You're just like Lynne Cheney. "We haven't been attacked by terrorist in the past 6 years because of my husband and the president." - Lynne Cheney, "But there have been terrorist acts... bombings in Spain and London, etc." - John Stewart, "We're talking about american interests here..." -Lynne Cheney.

No Cat 5 hurricanes hit the US this year but two huge ones pummeled Mexico... but you don't give a crap about them right?


RE: Yeah...
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 11:20:04 AM , Rating: 3
No, no I don't... However, what caused the Cat 5 hurricanes in the 60's?


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:25:28 AM , Rating: 3
Or the 1560s for that matter.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:27:45 AM , Rating: 1
There's a certain matter of frequency at play here.


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
Is there? The records don't show that the latest Cat 5 hurricanes are that far off expected behavior over the last several hundred years.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
And expected behavior at this point is an increase in frequency of monster storms, is it not?


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not a climatologist, so I won't pretend I'm an authority on this. But I will say that the El Nino / La Nina cycles are very well documented and have been for hundreds of years. The frequency of those storms lines up exactly with the weather we've seen over the last 30 years. There's been no unexpected behavior.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:20:00 PM , Rating: 1
This shows the occurrence of hurricanes in the Atlantic since tracking began:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane

And this shows the number of category 5 storms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane

As you can see, the trend is definitely a negative one.


RE: Yeah...
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/12/2007 11:21:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
and when we get routine Cat 5 hurricanes


Sounds like he was talking about us, but either way, I remember past seasons that were far worse then what we have experienced in the last couple of years. FYI, born and raised in FL and still living here, over 25 years. So I have some hurricane experience.


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 10:53:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yah and in 20 years when the Northern states get winters as mild as lower California, and when we get routine Cat 5 hurricanes you will wish you had been listening to him.

Even the doomsday predictions on climate change are 5 degrees F.

Blaming humans for Katrina is despicable, and you should be ashamed of that statement.

Al Gore *was* the Vice President and isn't the President today by sheer bad luck. Hell, I even voted for him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with his stance on climate change.

If he knew climate change was going to create massive hurricanes that would later his New Orleans, why didn't he say anything back then? Or, better yet, why didn't he fund better dams and levies?

Actually, even now why isn't he championing this? The research shows climate change is happening, but it also shows that we, as humans, do very little to influence it one way or another. Shouldn't we be building more resistant buildings rather than than trying to scare people into using less electricity?


RE: Yeah...
By Icec0o1 on 10/12/2007 11:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know what happens when you heat a cup with ice water? The temperature remains the same untill all of the ice has melted and then the temperature skyrockets. Guess what is happening right now? We're losing our ice at the poles at an alarming rate. Once that buffer is gone, the earth is going to become a nice, cozy venus.


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We're losing our ice at the poles at an alarming rate.

Except in Antartica. Where its actually increasing.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well, sea levels are rising, so I guess Antarctica better pick up the pace...


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, and it happens every so often too over the course of the last million years. I guess we better start swapping carbon credits. That's much easier than building cities in places that won't fall into the water.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 11:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
Whatever the case with that, I believe the point was ice levels were increasing in Antarctica, was it not? Well... and I was simply pointing out that increasing though they might be, that increase is nowhere near an equilibrium point vs the ice being lost to the sea. It'd be nice if people could stay on topic if they're going to debate ice and sea levels.


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that increase is nowhere near an equilibrium point vs the ice being lost to the sea

As much as I despised Michael Crichton's newest book, one thing I did take in was this notion of equilibrium.

Equilibrium, in nature, is a myth. There's no stable Earth. Canada used to be the bottom of the Ocean for millions of years (Where it belongs! Kidding). The Earth is an extremely volatile place, and we'd be extremely narcissistic to think every change in the world is some man's fault.

Everything on this planet is a cycle. I dare you to find a single constant on this planet. Because some ice melted this year and not last year is really not seeing the big picture. It contributes to the larger picture, but I'm by no means holding my breath that Artic/Anartic Ice changes will wipe out life overnight.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
What in the world are you rambling about at this point?

Fact: Sea levels are rising.

Fact: That is due to loss of water retention in the form of ice.

That's all. You're free to talk about cycles if you like as the cause of ice melting, and you're free to talk about ice melting being a myth because Antarctica is getting more of it, but don't hop in between them interchangeably, because they are mutually exclusive positions.


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
The sea level has risen 120 meters in the last 18,000 years. I guess I thought *that* was an alarming rate. I'd hardly call deviations in measured ice myth, it's just part of a larger cycle.

I'm having trouble finding this equilibrium you speak of.

I'd also give more credit to your "Here comes Venus" argument if said event hasn't occurred thousands of times in Earth's history too.


RE: Yeah...
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Having trouble finding the equilibrium?

Ok let me ask you simply then, what was your point in bringing up Antarctic ice levels?


RE: Yeah...
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok let me ask you simply then, what was your point in bringing up Antarctic ice levels?

To illustrate that even though sea levels are rising (certainly if you conisder the last 20,000 years or so), "intuitive" metrics like the volume of sea ice require more explanation when you lump the word doomsday in the same sentence.


RE: Yeah...
By JarvisTheGray on 10/12/2007 11:31:00 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Greenland too. And it's in the opposite hemisphere.... interesting.


RE: Yeah...
By Proteusza on 10/12/2007 11:53:25 AM , Rating: 4
Your statements echo religious fervour, and for a subject as scientific as anthropogenic global warming, thats not a good thing.

Sounds way too similar to, "In 20 years when you die and go to hell, you will wish you had listened to Jesus Christ. And you better hope there is a god, the alternative is worse."

Right. You believe what you will, I'll do my part to help the planet, but realize there is only so much I can do, and the planet itself has cycles of warming and cooling, and that, right now, the planet is not at the warmest its ever been.

But, I guess its easier to get sucked into fear and propaganda as spewed by Al Gore, and feel good about your conviction that humans are evil and screwing the planet up.


RE: Yeah...
By Christopher1 on 10/14/2007 5:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
That is 100% right. The world is not anywhere near where the hottest point in it's history was, which was near the beginning of the planet when everything was molten. Now, that's an extreme measurement, but I'll use one that's a little closer: the earth is not even as hot as it was during the age of the Dinosaurs yet!


RE: Yeah...
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 12:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yah and in 20 years when the Northern states get winters as mild as lower California,

The worst-case scenario that the IPCC detailed was a 4C change in temperature over the next 100 years. As I look at the temperature charts now, it's going to take a lot more than 4C to make the Northern states have winters as mild as lower California! Their more probable models show that the change will be more like 1.8 to 2.4C.

Yelling and screaming doomsday figures like you're doing here does absolutely nothing to further the cause. All it does it make people think that you're a religious nutbar. If you want to do something about climate change, stick to the science and lead by example!


Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 10:35:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Gore's work has had a major effect on the technology industry. With his help, public sentiment has shifted as people realize that oil dependence will only last so many years. This shift in turn has led to all the major car companies heavily pursuing, promoting, and investing in hybrid vehicles

LOL, nice try Jason. Investment in hybrid vehicle development started many years before Gore even got involved in environmental alarmism.

Gore is about as responsible for hybrid vehicles as he is for creating the Internet.

Today is a day of shame for the Nobel Peace Prize, IMO.




RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 10:44:45 AM , Rating: 3
I'm truly saddened and disturbed that the Nobel committee could not find someone more deserving of a Peace prize -- particularly given the number of peaceful leaders over the last few years.

Here was the original mandate from Nobel for the Peace Prize:

"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".

Seriously? How does Al Gore qualify for any of this?

The committee seals its records of the candidates for 50 years, so most of us will never know who the committee passed up in our lifetimes.


RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
I heard Dick Cheney barely missed the cut this year... I'll be anxious to see how the voting went.


RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By encryptkeeper on 10/12/2007 10:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should have read more of the qualifications that the Nobel committee uses to decide a nominee.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving an issue

Unlike what the Bush administration would like you to believe, global warming is real and it is an issue. I'm not saying it's 100% of the cause of climate changes on earth, because research has already proven it is not, but it sure as hell is contributing, and unless we do something it will just get worse.


RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:10:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unlike what the Bush administration would like you to believe, global warming is real and it is an issue.

Of course it's real.

The Inconvenient Truth is that we could eliminate all of our CO2 output tomorrow and it would hardly change a damn thing -- 2.5% of global output last I checked.

The Inconvenient Truth is that the "researchers" touting certainty one way or another change their minds every 30 years.

The Inconvenient Truth is that global warming is the media darling this year, but when it starts to fall from centerstage the real researchers and issues will go overlooked.

The Inconvenient Truth is that regardless if Gore accepts his award or not, instead of readying ourselves for impending climate change we're going to push trillions of dollars into trying to stop it.

The Inconvenient Truth is Al Gore can't be wrong: if global warming dims out and has no effect, Gore can say he fixed it. If it turns out to be a global disaster, he can say "I told you so"


RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By RogueSpear on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Gore - Hybrid Vehicles?
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:57:41 AM , Rating: 2
Exxon and Philip Morris have about as much to gain in global destruction as Al Gore does.

Give me a break. I'm not going to trust those companies when they do a study that indicates Smoking is good for you, but you can't deny facts that show global wa