Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[metallicat]

Is there any doubt that Gore would win the Presidential elections if he entered the race? Or at least the Democratic nomination?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I watched a really interesting episode of Nova a couple weeks ago called Dimming the Sun. The basic summed up version is that, contrails, which are the pollution left behind by planes are dimming the sun and are lowering the temperature on earth. The theory is that our impact on the temperature of the planet is worse then we thought because the contrails are stopping some of the suns natural heat. This was shown when on 9/11 all planes were grounded for 3 days and the temperature of the earth went up all over the planet. If anyone catches that show on TV, I recommend you watch it.

I saw that show too.

So, is the solution more planes?

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by habernac

No, he hasn't made a bigger lifestyle change than I have. I said it before, I like it that he's brought the issue of climate change to the forefront. But living in his mansion, travelling on planes, taking convoys of large SUVs to his little speeches makes him a hypocrite. As an example, he could very easily do his presentations from his home, getting a TV feed instead of jet setting around the continent.

I cycle to work 12 months of the year. The days I don't ride (in the last 6 months, I've taken the bus twice), I take the bus. Our family got rid of the second vehicle and drive a fuel efficient 4 cylinder car. We reuse and recycle. And I'll put my carbon footprint up against Gore's any day of the week.

We'll said. Gore should be able to set up a webcast of his speeches and broadcast them from home. After all he invented the internet. Why does he have to travel to world to spread his message when there are other more environmentally friendly ways of doing it? Also I never understood why he needs to ride around in a convoy of limos and SUV's. Does David Suzuki do the same?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by habernac

I cycle to work 12 months of the year. The days I don't ride (in the last 6 months, I've taken the bus twice), I take the bus. Our family got rid of the second vehicle and drive a fuel efficient 4 cylinder car. We reuse and recycle. And I'll put my carbon footprint up against Gore's any day of the week.

What Gore has done is to bring the environment into the minds of the collective conscieousness, which in the end has much bigger implications than him not getting on a plane. While I highly respect what you are doing, I don't think it's really apples to apples here.

Just because Al Gore doesn't live exactly according to what he preaches, doesn't nullify the message.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Stranger

We'll said. Gore should be able to set up a webcast of his speeches and broadcast them from home. After all he invented the internet. Why does he have to travel to world to spread his message when there are other more environmentally friendly ways of doing it? Also I never understood why he needs to ride around in a convoy of limos and SUV's. Does David Suzuki do the same?

Nope Suzuki rumbles around in a diesel tour bus and randomly tells kids to f off.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Stranger

I am all for cutting greenhouse gases and trying to be more environmentally friendly. I try to recycle and turn off a light when I'm not in the room.

But I don't attribute any of what I do to Al Gore. He comes accross as someone who can talk the talk, but not walk the walk. He probably pollutes ten times what my family would in a year. From riding in private jets to cruising the town in limos to heating his 10,000 sq ft house, Al gore needs to do what he preaches. Sure he buys into companies that make green power, but wouldn't it make more sense to live sensibly and contribute to green companies than to live a life of excess and claim that because I spend a little extra money on green stocks that its okay for me to pollute. And then he tells me to bike to work and live in a straw house.

When Al Gore makes Tipper bike to work, carpools to his speeches and finally builds that straw house of his, I'll take him seriously.

Originally Posted by Stranger

We'll said. Gore should be able to set up a webcast of his speeches and broadcast them from home. After all he invented the internet. Why does he have to travel to world to spread his message when there are other more environmentally friendly ways of doing it? Also I never understood why he needs to ride around in a convoy of limos and SUV's. Does David Suzuki do the same?

I read stuff like this and I just shake my head. This is proof that the echo chamber works. A faulty and inaccurate position is dreamed up by some think tank (Tennessee Center for Policy Research) and positioned in the media. One source picks it up, reports it without fact checking, and it starts to be repeated as outlets don't want to be left behind in reporting the sensational. Sadly, when the actual facts come out, they never make the same splash, because the truth is not sensational and does not have the excitement of the fabricated story. All it takes is repetition and a gullible public to consume a fallacy, and that fallacy becomes de facto truth.

I've seen it brought up a couple of times in this thread, and I think the whole covoy of SUV's needs to be explained. As an ex-Vice President, Gore is afforded Secret Service protection. This is not by his own choice, this is a requirement by the government. Same goes for every other past President or Vice-President. They get this protection everywhere they go, and it is not their choice.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by habernac

No, he hasn't made a bigger lifestyle change than I have. I said it before, I like it that he's brought the issue of climate change to the forefront. But living in his mansion, travelling on planes, taking convoys of large SUVs to his little speeches makes him a hypocrite. As an example, he could very easily do his presentations from his home, getting a TV feed instead of jet setting around the continent.

While I agree that would be the more environmental solution. However I highly doubt it's effectiveness would be the same as an in person meet. Either way, why does this make his message any less important?

I cycle to work 12 months of the year. The days I don't ride (in the last 6 months, I've taken the bus twice), I take the bus. Our family got rid of the second vehicle and drive a fuel efficient 4 cylinder car. We reuse and recycle. And I'll put my carbon footprint up against Gore's any day of the week.

I wasn't meaning personal carbon footprints. I was meaning that since Gore has spread his message to millions of people his collective effort would completely out weight yours. And I don't mean to take anything away from what your doing, which is excellent by the way.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Is there any doubt that Gore would win the Presidential elections if he entered the race? Or at least the Democratic nomination?

I think I heard on the morning news today, that even if he ran would still poll behind Hillary and Obama...but then again, I was rushing to get ready and might have heard wrong.

I'm not the biggest Gore fan, but I'm on the "Anyone But Hillary" train...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Stranger

We'll said. Gore should be able to set up a webcast of his speeches and broadcast them from home. After all he invented the internet.

I second that, Lanny:--not to mention the whole "invented the internet" claim being trotted out YET AGAIN.

For the last time. Al Gore never said he invented the internet. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" when he was a senator. This is actually true. Here's what internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have to say about his contribution:

[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

The idea that he claimed to have "invented" the internet is itself an invention of his enemies on the American right. I've never claimed Gore was perfect, but it's high time people started doing a little research rather than accepting whatever talking point FoxNews is spouting as the gospel truth. Democracy only works when there is a citizenry that takes the time to stay informed.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think I heard on the morning news today, that even if he ran would still poll behind Hillary and Obama...but then again, I was rushing to get ready and might have heard wrong.

I'm not the biggest Gore fan, but I'm on the "Anyone But Hillary" train...

My honest opinion is that Gore would stand no chance. And I think he understands this.

The reality of politics is that you get one shot. He got unlucky in the Supreme Court, but he also bungled both the election and the court case pretty badly, so you might call it just desserts.

I think he's doing all right anyway. Who wants to be president of a country with a sinking economy, mounting national debt and ongoing imbrication in an overseas conflict with no foreseeable end anyway?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nope Suzuki rumbles around in a diesel tour bus and randomly tells kids to f off.

David Suzuki and Al Gore could be dumping barrels of oil onto baby polar bear cubs, and the fact that the world as a whole needs to focus on reducing global warming would not deminish whatsoever.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My honest opinion is that Gore would stand no chance. And I think he understands this.

I don't think he'd have a chance either. But just like Jimmy Carter, I think Al Gore is doing much more good outside of the political realm than in it, so it's no real big loss.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

David Suzuki and Al Gore could be dumping barrels of oil onto baby polar bear cubs, and the fact that the world as a whole needs to focus on reducing global warming would not deminish whatsoever.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.

That's always been the problem with the environmental movement though. The messengers have always been fringe whack jobs that make Doomsday predictions that the world may be ending soon. When the world doesn't end, people shrug their shoulders and go back to what they were doing before.

As for Alberta, I am of the mind that only a democratic endeavour, like a grassroots-approved stewardship agenda, will have the wanted impact needed in our province. Our politicians are too lazy/incompetent/set in their ways to make the needed change.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Table 5

David Suzuki and Al Gore could be dumping barrels of oil onto baby polar bear cubs, and the fact that the world as a whole needs to focus on reducing global warming would not deminish whatsoever.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.

so "do as I say, not as I do" is ok to you then? I don't buy it, personally. They're asking everyone to change their habits. They offset theirs with carbon credits. What a crock. That's like me having a tire fire in my backyard, but it's ok because I get my home heated with wind power.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You state this beauty, then follow it up with this...



Tim Patterson, and his Natural Resources Stewardship Project, are well known shills for the petrochemical lobby north and south of the 49th. He and his collegues get substantial payments through this front organization and are paid to dismiss the accepted theory and promote other, less accepted (nee fringe), theories that have even less data supporting them. If that's who you have tied your beliefs to, you're being lead down the wrong path.

As distinguished American sociologist, Robert K. Merton stated about science, "there is no such thing as a scientific truth believed by one person and disbelieved by the rest of the scientific community; an idea becomes a truth only when the vast majority of scientists accept it without question. That is, after all, what we mean by the expression 'scientific contribution': an offering that is accepted however provisionally, into the common fund of knowledge."

Like it or not, global warming is a universally accepted truth. There is no argument on the topic. What is open to debate is the reasons for the warming effect. The vast majority of the scientific community have agreed on the CO2 theory as most likely, but there is still discussion about how the CO2 increases are tied to human action and our level of responsibility. Because this is not yet agreed to, universally, does not mean we should not act upon this. That does not change the fact that we have the ability to alter our society for the betterment of the planet by reducing our contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here, I'll try and put into terms that make sense to you.

If the toilet in your house is plugged and overflowing, do you take action to stop the flow of effluent back into your home? Or do you go in and drop a deuce and roll the dice by pulling the handle again? Maybe you play it smart and hold it, or you go next door and use your neighbor's crapper? I know what the pragmatic decision would be, I guess the only question is do you?

As distinguished American sociologist, Robert K. Merton stated about science, "there is no such thing as a scientific truth believed by one person and disbelieved by the rest of the scientific community; an idea becomes a truth only when the vast majority of scientists accept it without question.

Einstein once said this:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

And no, vast majority of scientists don't believe in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...global_warming

Like it or not, global warming is a universally accepted truth. There is no argument on the topic. What is open to debate is the reasons for the warming effect.

We agree there.

For you and everyone else that may or may not believe in man made global warming, how can you explain the periods in time when temperature was higher than C02 levels? The average temperature in the middle ages was a degree and half higher than it is today. I am sure they had big production plants and oil refineries back in the 1300s.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here's what I don't get- WDF does climate change have to do with peace? Sure- maybe give him the Nobel Prize for science or something, but for peace?

while I understand your question I think it would be even worse to award Gore a 'science' prize (actually there are prizes for chemistry, physics and medicine I believe). this has nothing to do with my thoughts on Gore or his conclusions, but simply those prizes should probably go to scientists, not politician/filmakers

[moon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The reality of politics is that you get one shot. He got unlucky in the Supreme Court, but he also bungled both the election and the court case pretty badly, so you might call it just desserts.

I don't want to start an election debate here but he didn't get unlucky,he lost he damn election fair and square. People can talk all about the right wing lies about Gore inventing the internet or his carbon footprint, but the biggest load of crap is the left wing insistence that Gore won that election and was somehow screwed in 2000.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't want to start an election debate here but he didn't get unlucky,he lost he damn election fair and square. People can talk all about the right wing lies about Gore inventing the internet or his carbon footprint, but the biggest load of crap is the left wing insistence that Gore won that election and was somehow screwed in 2000.

2 questions:

1. Who got more votes?
2. Who got more votes in Florida?

The answer to both, in case you're curious, is Al Gore. A full audit of ballots in Florida, which was performed months after the election was ratified, revealed that a statewide recount of ballots would have given Gore the state by about 500 votes.

Of course, Gore's legal team never asked for a statewide recount. They asked for a targeted recount to areas where democrats were strong. This was a huge mistake, because it was cynical, made them lose the moral high ground, and weakened their legal case. In part as a result, the recount was stopped by the supreme court before all the ballots could be recounted, and the election was ratified. Still, Bush v. Gore is one of the biggest head-scratchers to legal scholars out there--but that's a whole other debate.

Did Gore bungle the court case? Absolutely--not to mention that the election shouldn't even have been close. Bush was about the least qualified nominee imaginable, and Gore should have mopped the floor with him. Instead, he didn't, which meant that it became an election that came down to a few hundred votes in Florida.

So yeah--Gore really did win the election, IMO. He also probably got what he deserved in the end.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

And no, vast majority of scientists don't believe in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...global_warming

Hang on--a list of a few dozen scientists on a wikipedia page proves that "the vast majority" of scientists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming?

For this debate to go anywhere, I think all parties have to answer one simple question: How will you know if you're wrong?

Here, I'll go first: I'll know I'm wrong about anthropogenic global warming when one of the gold-standard journals of science research (Science, Nature, etc.) publishes a review article that shows that the consensus among experts has changed to reflect that global warming is not being caused by humans. This article should make reference to numerous primary research sources, should be written by someone who is reputable in the field of climate science (i.e. not a PhD in some unrelated field like Mathematics or Engineering) who has done some of that primary research him or herself. It should also present a new and plausible paradigm for understanding climate change (i.e. not something stupid like sunspots)

Ok, you're next: How will you know if you're wrong? If 99% of reputable climate scientists believe it? 99.9% Or is, say, 60% or 70% enough?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's always been the problem with the environmental movement though. The messengers have always been fringe whack jobs that make Doomsday predictions that the world may be ending soon. When the world doesn't end, people shrug their shoulders and go back to what they were doing before.

How are Al Gore and David Suzuki fringe whack jobs? Suzuki is a PHD with almost 40 years of being a professor, has 22 honorary degrees, and has been presented the Order of Canada. I'd like to see anyone match those kinds of credentials in their own profession...

David Suzuki might not be perfect, but he has spent a whole lifetime in trying to improve the environment. The odd time he doesnt live 100% according to his beliefs, we are supposed to throw out every thing he's ever said? That's BS.