Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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

That link does not prove that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in the basis of the theory. That link is actually quite entertaining, so thank you for posting it. What that link does prove is that those that deny the CO2 theory all have their own agendas, their own ideas, and are not in agreement with anything except their do not agree with the accepted theory.

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.

Don't know for certain. Could have been a result of massive burnings to clear lands that were going on at that time. I personally don't know, because I don't have any level of expertise in the day-to-day existence of those who lived in the 14th century.

Here's a question for you. Smog has been directly linked to temperature increases in major metropolitan areas (and vice versa) and studies support that. If this is working in micro-environments, then why would it not work in our macro-environment? How do you explain that away? Our impact on the environment is obvious. We should clean up our act while we can.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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 read stuff like this and shake MY head. This "right-wing media" hiding the truth nonsense is hilarious, if anything the slant in media (with the obvious exception of Fox News) is distinctly left-wing, especially here in Canada. Your argument of truth not making a splash is also hypocritical, considering that mainstream media frequently trots out global warming models predicting flooding, extinction of species, etc, all released by scientists that you claim to be peddling the truth - talk about sensationalized. What they fail to mention is that models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and the base assumption in all of these models is that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. In spite of all your bluster, this is far from proven. There is legitimate science studying the effect of the sun on global climate trends, however, you choose to right it off, labelling it as propped up by oil companies, when much of it is not. You also fail to realize that the science in your favor is propped up by huge government subsidies. In the 80s Margaret Thatcher basically put money on the table for the scientists who could "prove" anthropogenic global warming. She did this in order to move away from dependency on coal and advance Britain's nuclear program. The point of this is that you claim that the science arguing against CO2 caused global warming is heavily subsidized by industry, however, those presenting your side are equally funded (if not more so).

These gloom and doom predictions from these models are garbage - the temperature of the earth has been much higher than it is now, and nothing disastrous happened. This is the left-wing creating a state of fear in order to get elected (which I will grant that the right-wing does as well with their claims of terrorism threats). I just think it's interesting that while you are so quick to call fear-mongering when it's the opposing view, you're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to see when your side does it.

The truth is that our climate is a function of many, many factors, however, the largest determinant is solar activity. Without the sun, our climate wouldn't exist, so it is not possible to say that there is a greater determinant. As for the recent temperature trends, I feel that pinning them all on one factor is ignorant and dangerous, as it is leading us into a state of great fear.

To be clear, all of this is not to say that I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and emissions - I think it is very important that we take responsibility for our impact on the environment, and live my live as such. However, I think that currently we are taking responsibility for an impact that we have very little to do with, and as a result are spending tremendous resources on fighting a force that is much greater than us.

[Salisbury]

What a joke. What in the heck has Al Gore done for world peace? Solved the Middle East Crisis? Sorted out violence in Iraq? Convinced Mugabe to step down and hold free and fair elections with an allowed opposition? Reined in the Taliban in Afghanistan? The list goes on.
He has raised awareness of global warming with a campaign and a documentary. Done nothing for world peace, IMO.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by troutman

I saw that show too.

So, is the solution more planes?

Haha, I thought of that too. Pollute more to lessen the impact of other pollution.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

I won't dismiss Suzuki to a large degree, I've met the guy once after he interviewed my boss. In person, he seemed pretty moderate and accepting of conservatives genuinely involving themselves in the environmental debate. I do believe that he wants good change to happen and has personally involved himself to lower his impact upon his environment.

However, in public he has tended to use very polarizing language when talking about policy alternatives.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Salisbury

What a joke. What in the heck has Al Gore done for world peace? Solved the Middle East Crisis? Sorted out violence in Iraq? Convinced Mugabe to step down and hold free and fair elections with an allowed opposition? Reined in the Taliban in Afghanistan? The list goes on.
.

yeah but who did do those things this year? anyone?

I'm about as neutral as it comes on Gore, but I think possibly (I would have to go through past winners to really know) that "peace" might be a nebulous term with respect to this prize, and that someone who provided leadership on a global issue such as hunger, education or climate that indirectly affected stability could win the prize

now I'm not saying Gore is that man necessarily or that the climate issue is solved or anything...but I'm ok with these types of issues winning the peace prize

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Here's a question for you. Smog has been directly linked to temperature increases in major metropolitan areas (and vice versa) and studies support that. If this is working in micro-environments, then why would it not work in our macro-environment? How do you explain that away? Our impact on the environment is obvious. We should clean up our act while we can.

Here's a question for you. Smog has been directly linked to temperature increases in major metropolitan areas (and vice versa) and studies support that.

Ice core samples have shown that "smog" (isn't smog more carbon monoxide?) and temperatures do not have a direct link. So I am not sure if that is accurate.

It is good that you brought up a key word in all of this: Metropolitan

Metropolitan temperatures are a little inflated because of all the ashphault and concrete that is used in metropolitan development. The thermal bulk properties of ashphault give off additional heat in what is called the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Our impact on the environment is obvious.

On this issue, it is not obvious at all. I can not disagree with you more. This issue in inconclusive at best.

[Burninator]

TOTF where have you gotten the information that has so firmly set you in your stance? Wikipedia, TV, newspapers, books, journals, somewhere else? Just curious.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

TOTF where have you gotten the information that has so firmly set you in your stance? Wikipedia, TV, newspapers, books, journals, somewhere else? Just curious.

I did read a peer-reviewed journal from a pair of Canadian scientists, Ross McKitrick and some other fellow, who said that there simply isn't enough data to project reliable temperature forecasts. They make the point that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia closed over 25 000 weather monitoring stations. China also has spotty weather station coverage. All of this combines to a huge hole in available data.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by puckhog

I read stuff like this and shake MY head. This "right-wing media" hiding the truth nonsense is hilarious, if anything the slant in media (with the obvious exception of Fox News) is distinctly left-wing, especially here in Canada.

Actually, I never mentioned which bias the media had, YOU did, just now. I was critical of all media, and the echo chamber they create. All media is responsible for this, irregardless of ideological bias, as the journalistic practices (fact checking being the most important) has gone by the wayside in favor of breaking the story first.

Fact of the matter is that all media has become right wing, as has the basic political ideology in our countries. There is actually no true voice on the extreme left, as that was permanently muted during the McCarthy era, but the extreme right continues to be guaranteed a voice and promoted through the corporate owned media.

Your argument of truth not making a splash is also hypocritical, considering that mainstream media frequently trots out global warming models predicting flooding, extinction of species, etc, all released by scientists that you claim to be peddling the truth - talk about sensationalized.

Really? Yeah, I read about these studies every single day in the WSJ and the NYT and the WP. They're EVERYWHERE, ALL the time!

What they fail to mention is that models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and the base assumption in all of these models is that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. In spite of all your bluster, this is far from proven.

The United Nations and the majority of climatologists disagree with you.

There is legitimate science studying the effect of the sun on global climate trends, however, you choose to right it off, labelling it as propped up by oil companies, when much of it is not.

No, I did not marginalize that science, I marginalized one individual who gets his money from big oil. There is a massive difference. But if Patterson is that one guy, who is carrying the charge for this science (which he is not IMO) then that school of science is in very deep trouble.

You also fail to realize that the science in your favor is propped up by huge government subsidies. In the 80s Margaret Thatcher basically put money on the table for the scientists who could "prove" anthropogenic global warming. She did this in order to move away from dependency on coal and advance Britain's nuclear program. The point of this is that you claim that the science arguing against CO2 caused global warming is heavily subsidized by industry, however, those presenting your side are equally funded (if not more so).

That is incorrect and akin to the erroneous claims by the right that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. Fact of the matter is that climate change and the CO2 theory has been around since the early 20th century when Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, promoted the theory. It has been studied since then and we've had many different fields of study come to the same conclusion. Oceanographer Roger Revelle predicted in 1957 that CO2 would build up in the atmosphere and would have significant impacts on our planet by the year 2000. Climatologist Suki Manabe predicted in 1980 that the poles would begin to deteriorate as a result of this CO2 enduced global warming. At that same time NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted, with stunning accuracy, what the temperatures would be like in 30 years and the impacts they would have. Margaret Thatcher had zero to do with any of this.

These gloom and doom predictions from these models are garbage - the temperature of the earth has been much higher than it is now, and nothing disastrous happened.

Disaterous, like the polar ice caps disappearing and hurricane storm strength getting progressively stronger, with more high force storms berthing than ever before? No, none of that stuff is happening. Now excuse me, I have to go water skiing in the Northwest Passage, as its ice free for the first time on our recorded history.

This is the left-wing creating a state of fear in order to get elected (which I will grant that the right-wing does as well with their claims of terrorism threats). I just think it's interesting that while you are so quick to call fear-mongering when it's the opposing view, you're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to see when your side does it.

Get it through your head, there is no left wing in North America. There is the right, and then there are those who are not on the right. There is no communist voice. There is no socialist voice. The Liberals, who are pretty damn centerist in the political spectrum, are the far left. The extreme right has moved the center line to the point where true conservatives, those who used to be on the right, are now the centerist position.

The truth is that our climate is a function of many, many factors, however, the largest determinant is solar activity. Without the sun, our climate wouldn't exist, so it is not possible to say that there is a greater determinant. As for the recent temperature trends, I feel that pinning them all on one factor is ignorant and dangerous, as it is leading us into a state of great fear.

I agree. There are MANY determining factors as to why our planet is heating up, but why shouldn't we control the ones that we can? We can't control the sun, but we can control the amount of polutants that we pump into our atmosphere. Even if they only decrease polution and make our air better to breath, and even if they decrease the number of smog days in a year, and even if they decrease the occurances of asthma and other respitory diseases, shouldn't THAT be enough incentive to do so? You toss around bull like "self-righteousness" so excuse me while I toss the terms "arrogance" and "selfish" in your face. Because you supposedly know a lot more than the scientists studying this subject matter, and you couldn't careless about anyone or anything else, because it could possibly impact your precious lifestyle.

To be clear, all of this is not to say that I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and emissions - I think it is very important that we take responsibility for our impact on the environment, and live my live as such. However, I think that currently we are taking responsibility for an impact that we have very little to do with, and as a result are spending tremendous resources on fighting a force that is much greater than us.

So to put that in clear one sentence, we don't really know, so we should just bury our heads in the (oil) sands and do nothing.

Brilliant.

[peter12]

Lanny, do you actually teach at a degree-granting institution? Crazy. You're a smart guy, just way, way out there. Ever heard of perspective?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Lanny, do you actually teach at a degree-granting institution? Crazy. You're a smart guy, just way, way out there. Ever heard of perspective?

Way out there because I've not being sucked in to the culture of stupidity (not a shot at anyone on this board, just a general term used to describe the changes that have taken place in our society) that has been developed over the past 40+ years? You speak of perspective, but do you have any yourself? We are indoctinated to believe so much BS that leads to our own control. Look beyond the ideological crap and start look at things from a global perspective and you may have an epiphany. Of course, once you do, you'll never look at our society in the same way. Freud was considered a loon because of the way he analyzed the human animal. Having a different perspective is a good thing IMO, and I encourage every single person on this planet to develop their own perspective, and then share it as part of our collective intelligence. It is this collective intelligence that solve the problems of the world in the future, not the social structures that we have been programmed to rely upon.

Oh, and presently, I do not teach. Not saying I won't in the future, but the time is not right.

[Cube Inmate]

If the Kyoto cult were actually based on an altruistic care for the globe, then it wouldn't even be an argument. Those who believe that CO2 emissions are threatening the world would simply go about their business of reducing their own "carbon footprints" and encouraging others to do the same. Leading by example is a far more effective approach than trying to coerce others' actions with restrictive laws.

For many, though, that's not enough. The philosophy of Kyoto is like a childish "if I can't have it, then neither can you!" On the other side, the anti-Kyoto crowd childishly responds with "the harder you push, the harder I'll resist!" Furthermore, it seems that people like Gore will never be happy unless everyone believes the same as they do...as if they need complete validation of their beliefs.

Ironic, I think, that Gore is awarded a "peace prize" when he's personally responsible for inflaming one of the most heated conflicts in the world today. Unfortunately, it's safe to say that a conflict like this will NOT result in the optimal solution. We're beyond the point where compromise is a possibility. And it's too bad.

[MelBridgeman]

Congrats to Al Gore the Attention Whore...He doesnt deserve this at all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

If the Kyoto cult were actually based on an altruistic care for the globe, then it wouldn't even be an argument. Those who believe that CO2 emissions are threatening the world would simply go about their business of reducing their own "carbon footprints" and encouraging others to do the same. Leading by example is a far more effective approach than trying to coerce others' actions with restrictive laws.

For many, though, that's not enough. The philosophy of Kyoto is like a childish "if I can't have it, then neither can you!" On the other side, the anti-Kyoto crowd childishly responds with "the harder you push, the harder I'll resist!" Furthermore, it seems that people like Gore will never be happy unless everyone believes the same as they do...as if they need complete validation of their beliefs.

Ironic, I think, that Gore is awarded a "peace prize" when he's personally responsible for inflaming one of the most heated conflicts in the world today. Unfortunately, it's safe to say that a conflict like this will NOT result in the optimal solution. We're beyond the point where compromise is a possibility. And it's too bad.

Interesting comments. What is your position on development of green technologies in North America versus the rest of the world? We're supposed to be the world leaders in intellectual property, yet we are falling behind in this regard, even when we have all the political imputus to adapt to new technologies.

A great example is the whole idea of an alternative fuel source for transportation. GM had an opportunity to be a leader, but not only dropped the ball, but ripped it to pieces and buried the reminants. GM developed the first truly viable electric vehicle in the EV1, but fought hard to kill the technology in the courts. They then had the potential to be a leader in the hybrid development, but turned their noses up at it, and Toyota went it alone. Now the far east is years a head in developments. Toyota is the leader in hybrid technology. Honda is way out in front in fuel cell technology and is ready to offer a fuel unit that can power your home and vehicle. The Chinese are leaders in the electric car battle, although the Japanese have a much better product. Where is North America in the debate? Not involved as they are busy fighting for control of more fossil fuels. Comments?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Congrats to Al Gore the Attention Whore...He doesnt deserve this at all.

How in this case is he an attention whore?

And you are making your decision about his deservedness based on what?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How in this case is he an attention whore?

And you are making your decision about his deservedness based on what?

He is a attention whore in general....but winning a nobel prize got him headlines, which is what any presidential hopefull wants.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Toyota is the leader in hybrid technology.

What's your take on this?

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/d...20060719.shtml

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

TOTF where have you gotten the information that has so firmly set you in your stance? Wikipedia, TV, newspapers, books, journals, somewhere else? Just curious.

Well listening to talk radio got me interested on the topic. Then I read some articles and watched both The Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle, and the evidence presented in the latter made much more sense than the former.

I then did some reading on Wikipedia cause I think its a great starting point for any type of research. I read and watched presentations from both sides and I just do not think that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming like the general public believes.

I think that this is one big political movement from a bunch of anti-capitalists and extremist groups. There has been a false industry created because of this.

Even though I have stated in this thread that I don't like man made global warming exists, my true stance is that the science is in its infancy, and that a conclusion was reached way too quickly. I am not an expert on this issue, but just some quick work on google will tell you that the theories presented by Gore, Suzuki, Mann, etc...are bunk.

No one that is pro man made global warming has been able to awknowledge the fact that the rate of CO2 levels have been higher than temperature levels more than once in the Earth's history. And the thing that angers me the most is that these groups won't even look at the debate. It is like a religion, and Al Gore is jesus. If you disagree, you are some outcast.

The other thing that angers me is that only one side of the debate is shown on main stream TV. Yes there have been some documentaries shown on TV, but majority of it as been one sided. It just blows me away when I see TV reporters report this like it is a fact. NO! It is a theory. Some how this theory has turned into FACT. There is a big difference.

The absolute best article on the topic is one done by Micheal Creighton. In this article he questions BOTH sides and really picks the issue apart.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speec...talfuture.html

The people and politicians that believe in this are hypocrytes IMO. If they were really serious about stopping CO2 produced global warming, they would not have credit trading. They could just have hard caps for all countries. Can you imagine if we could trade cap space in the NHL?

The other side of this debate needs to be heard. I just wish I could some how make this voice louder.....

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Interesting comments. What is your position on development of green technologies in North America versus the rest of the world? We're supposed to be the world leaders in intellectual property, yet we are falling behind in this regard, even when we have all the political imputus to adapt to new technologies.

A great example is the whole idea of an alternative fuel source for transportation. GM had an opportunity to be a leader, but not only dropped the ball, but ripped it to pieces and buried the reminants. GM developed the first truly viable electric vehicle in the EV1, but fought hard to kill the technology in the courts. They then had the potential to be a leader in the hybrid development, but turned their noses up at it, and Toyota went it alone. Now the far east is years a head in developments. Toyota is the leader in hybrid technology. Honda is way out in front in fuel cell technology and is ready to offer a fuel unit that can power your home and vehicle. The Chinese are leaders in the electric car battle, although the Japanese have a much better product. Where is North America in the debate? Not involved as they are busy fighting for control of more fossil fuels. Comments?

I don't really follow your point because I'm not very familiar with the EV1, but I'll comment nonetheless. Are you implying that they "killed" the electric car because the technology would threaten the oil industry?

I think "green" technologies are incredibly important not because of the GW implications, but because we live in a world of scarce resources and it's necessary to make better use of those. Furthermore, the true pollutants resulting from our energy usage can and do have a measurable impact on quality of life (e.g. smog).

So, to your example of GM vs. the Asian auto industry.... I guess the pertinent question is "why is Asia developing green technologies and GM is not?" One perspective: GM is in the back pocket of "big oil" and doesn't want to hurt that industry. Another perspective: GM doesn't know how to make these things profitably.

Frankly, I don't care why they've been surpassed by the Japanese. The fact is that N. American consumers are buying hybrid vehicles and GM is suffering for it. Eventually, GM will either come around to using greener technologies or it'll go out of business. We don't need our domestic corporations to lead the way in technologies. We certainly don't need to coerce them into unprofitable ventures using political tricks. We simply need individuals such as yourself to lead the way in supporting green technologies and the market will ensure that they are adopted.