Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 07:32 AM

I didn't know that brain washing the public on incomplete and false facts can win you the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/1...bel-peace.html

ken0042 · 10-12-2007, 07:38 AM

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?

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-12-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I didn't know that brain washing the public on incomplete and false facts can win you the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/1...bel-peace.html

Er... okay.

FYI, Al Gore has been an environmental activist since he was a student in University. The award is supposed to commemorate his lifetime contribution to this issue.

As it happens, I still think it should have gone to the monks in Myanmar, but the venom some people have for Al Gore is hard to understand. The guy has achieved a lot in his life: deal with it.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-12-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

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?

Yeah, I think that's weird too. They had some convoluted reasoning about how climate change=more scarce resources=more competion=more war, I think--but that's really pretty weak.

I think the real problem is there's no Nobel prize for environmental activism. Maybe they should create one rather than coming up with some strange way of giving an old award to someone in a new category.

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Er... okay.

FYI, Al Gore has been an environmental activist since he was a student in University. The award is supposed to commemorate his lifetime contribution to this issue.

As it happens, I still think it should have gone to the monks in Myanmar, but the venom some people have for Al Gore is hard to understand. The guy has achieved a lot in his life: deal with it.

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.

Table 5 · 10-12-2007, 07:51 AM

he and others? you mean 99% of the scientific community?

Just because global warming doesnt mesh with your belief system, doesn't mean it's not happening. You don't think the current ways of industry and living don't "directly effect you and I"? Stop dreaming.

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

he and others? you mean 99% of the scientific community?

Just because global warming doesnt mesh with your belief system, doesn't mean it's not happening. You don't think the current ways of industry and living don't "directly effect you and I"? Stop dreaming.

BS. 99% of the scientific community do not agree with those conclusions.

Global warming does exist. Man made global warming does not.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-12-2007, 08:00 AM

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.

underGRADFlame · 10-12-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

BS. 99% of the scientific community do not agree with those conclusions.

Global warming does exist. Man made global warming does not.

You don't believe that the 400+ years of burning fosil fuels into our atmosphere has had no effect on it?

BOT: I think the awarness that Gore has brought to enviormental issues has and will do nothing but good things for the world, so he's deserving of the award.
I still wonder how the last 7 years would have been different if the 2000 Election had gone the other way. For serial.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-12-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

BS. 99% of the scientific community do not agree with those conclusions.

Global warming does exist. Man made global warming does not.

It's obvious you've made up your mind. Maybe we're better off sticking to talking about Gore.

habernac · 10-12-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

BS. 99% of the scientific community do not agree with those conclusions.

Global warming does exist. Man made global warming does not.

You have irrefutable proof of that I suppose?

While I do not agree with a lot of what Gore promotes, I appreciate that he's brought the issue to the forefront.

And no, I do not agree that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Climate change has nothing to do with Peace.

underGRADFlame · 10-12-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habernac

You have irrefutable proof of that I suppose?

While I do not agree with a lot of what Gore promotes, I appreciate that he's brought the issue to the forefront.

And no, I do not agree that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Climate change has nothing to do with Peace.

Come on without nice weather what chance does peace have?

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

You don't believe that the 400+ years of burning fosil fuels into our atmosphere has had no effect on it?

All I am going to say is to read a paper by professor Tim Patterson of Carlton University. His papers are supported by many people in climate science. If you read it you will see that sunspot variations are primary cause of global warming.

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

Also there have been periods in history when the Earth's temperature has been higher than CO2 levels.

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habernac

You have irrefutable proof of that I suppose?

I am not a climate scientist, so the direct answer to your question is no. However there is a ton of proof out there that goes against Gore's theories.

I better get back to work otherwise I will be on this all day haha. This is always a fun debate.

Resolute 14 · 10-12-2007, 08:15 AM

Pearson, and anyone else who actually earned the peace prize are likely rolling over in their graves.

Mike F · 10-12-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

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?

A couple of suggested ways of thinking about it that I've seen are to look at his/their work to raise awareness and change behaviours as promoting peace and harmony between humans and the global ecosystem, or alternatively to recognize that global warming will cause changes to the environment and alter resource amounts and distributions in ways that will undoubtedly result in conflict -- e.g. the Darfur conflict has been linked at least in part to fighting over water.

CaptainCrunch · 10-12-2007, 08:18 AM

I have no problem with Al Gore bringing up environmental issues, I think it does need to be done, however, I remain somewhat unconvinced that green house gases are the major reason for the increase in temperature.

I also don't think that the nobel peace prize should have been given to him in this case, he hasn't made an irrefutable argument, outside of going from town to town and collecting speaking fee's he hasn't done anything extra-ordinary.

In otherwords I question his impact, especially when you have to pay to see his movie or earn it.

If there was a year that no peace prize was awarded, this would be it.

It seems like a popularity vote to me.

arsenal · 10-12-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

You don't believe that the 400+ years of burning fosil fuels into our atmosphere has had no effect on it?

I think it was about 40 years ago, there was a global cooling trend, where the
"science was in" and the earth was headed into the next ice age.

Global warming exists, just the same as global cooling. The question still remains if there is a direct correlation between us as humans burning fossil fuels, and the effect that has on global warming.

I for one think that the climate is too complex a system to make such a simplistic connection.

the_only_turek_fan · 10-12-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arsenal

I think it was about 40 years ago, there was a global cooling trend, where the
"science was in" and the earth was headed into the next ice age.

Global warming exists, just the same as global cooling. The question still remains if there is a direct correlation between us as humans burning fossil fuels, and the effect that has on global warming.

I for one think that the climate is too complex a system to make such a simplistic connection.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

In the early 70s when you would think that CO2 levels would be high after the post war boom.

I think you hit the nail right on the head by saying that this is a complex issue and that there needs to be concrete solution one way or another before very expensive economic policies are made.

We are far from that conclusion right now.

Table 5 · 10-12-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Pearson, and anyone else who actually earned the peace prize are likely rolling over in their graves.

Yeah, noble peace-loving men like Yasser Arrafat!

Personally, I think natural resources and oil have caused many a war this century. Moving away from these things will do a lot for peace down the line. Good for Al...at least he's trying to contribute something positive to this earth...and not just making excuses for our current lifestyle like most politicians and business leaders out there.