Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
Deal with what? The fact that he along with others have created a hysteria in the general public based on imcomplete facts and flawed "scientific experiments." These flawed experiments are dictating costly policies that directly effect you and I. No I will not deal with it.
|
There have been about a dozen threads on this topic already. Let me give you a preview of how it goes. Someone (Table 5 in this case) correctly points out that the vast majority of reputable scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. Someone else then posts a single article disputing that and says "see, the jury's out!"
The problem is that if you apply that test, then the jury's also out on creationism and the geocentric solar system. There's more than enough evidence to show that our actions on this planet have vast and far-reaching effects on its climate--and yes, those will directly affect you and me in the future.
Unfortunately, think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute have as their stated agenda to create "analysis paralysis" on this issue, to protect the corporate interests that back them. So they fund research that is designed to poke holes in climate change theory--indeed, the AEI has put a "bounty" on climate change theory, offered to any scientist who can offer persuasive contrary evidence. These are supposed to be honest actors in the discourse? Hardly.
But I don't think we need to rehash all of that here. The topic at hand is whether Gore deserves this award--and as I said before, I think the Monks in Myanmar are more deserving, just because it's called the "Nobel Peace Prize," not the "Nobel Prize in Environmental Activism." They should have just created a new category--I don't see the harm in that.