Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize

[Meshugger]

Linky

 

First the Oscar, and now this. If he somehow enters the presendential election, he will win every.single.debate., no matter what the arguments of the others or the current topic.

 

-"Got an Oscar?"

-"Err, no"

-"Got a Nobel award?"

-"NO!"

-"Did you invent the internet?"

-"For pete's sake, what does that have to do with...."

-"Case closed, ladies and gentlemen, .case.closed."

[Walsingham]

I did think it was rather suspect. A judge in the Uk recently ruled that there were eight mistakes in his film, and that it should only be shown with them listed. The judge did, however also say that the thrust of the film was unaffected by the judgement.

 

 

I dunno. I just think maybe we could have better people speaking. But then smiley Nelson Mandela praised the IRA, so you can't have it all.

[Enoch]

It is interesting how they decide these things. The Peace Prize has been awarded for advocacy on certain issues before, but this is the first prize that has gone for advocacy of environmental issues. Most of the past "issue advocacy" awards have had to do with democracy, dangerous weapons, or oppressed people..

[Hurlshort]

Eh, it's not bad to bring attention to environmental awareness, even if the science isn't perfect in his movie. Whether it's political or not, I'd rather us go overboard on protecting the earth than vice versa.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think his nomination is a bit of a stretch since the Nobel Pace Prize is supposed to go to people who have made significant efforts to resolve conflicts between nations and to prevent military rearmament.

 

 

but they had to give him something, I suppose

[metadigital]

What do you mean if he runs for president? "

[Walsingham]

Actually I have no problem with it being the Peace prize. If the environment becomes harsher you are going to see incrased competition for resources, and perhaps conflict over the right to use industrial power. This, to lift the essence of FALLOUT means war. Sustainable development is possibly the only way it can be avoided.

[taks]

I did think it was rather suspect. A judge in the Uk recently ruled that there were eight mistakes in his film, and that it should only be shown with them listed.

11, actually, but some reports are now saying 9.

 

The judge did, however also say that the thrust of the film was unaffected by the judgement.

which was utter nonsense. gore's key claim was the chart showing CO2 and temp with the mention that "see, every time CO2 rises, so does temperature." the fact that temp rises first, the obvious error, typically by 800 years, often as many as 2000, changes the entire thrust of his film from scientific to science fiction, just on that one point alone.

 

I dunno. I just think maybe we could have better people speaking. But then smiley Nelson Mandela praised the IRA, so you can't have it all.

yassir arafat is another winner of the "prestigious" nobel peace prize. ya got an activist organization awarding yet another activist an award... hardly a surprise.

 

taks

[taks]

Actually I have no problem with it being the Peace prize. If the environment becomes harsher you are going to see incrased competition for resources, and perhaps conflict over the right to use industrial power. This, to lift the essence of FALLOUT means war. Sustainable development is possibly the only way it can be avoided.

warmer does not equate to "harsher." indeed, more species flourish in warmer, rather than cooler, temperature climes. there are orders of magnitudes of more deaths every year related to colder temperatures rather than warmer. if anything, a warmer planet would be a benefit, not a detriment. this is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by the green activists, gore included.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

I think the idea is there will be more storms and more floods. Crops should improve rather than decline though.

[Walsingham]

As Gorgo says, if it were merely warmer and wetter that would be largely groovy. However we are talking disturbed patterns and upheaval. Equatorial desertification, and flooding towards the poles. Never mind the loss of arable land due to sea rises.

 

On a side note, the rise in populations alone could be enough to provoke many larger wars and instability. Many developing nations have populations expanding at rates much faster than their economies can grow. Dissatisfaction and extremism are far more predictable than the weather.

[Meshugger]

Actually I have no problem with it being the Peace prize. If the environment becomes harsher you are going to see incrased competition for resources, and perhaps conflict over the right to use industrial power. This, to lift the essence of FALLOUT means war. Sustainable development is possibly the only way it can be avoided.

warmer does not equate to "harsher." indeed, more species flourish in warmer, rather than cooler, temperature climes. there are orders of magnitudes of more deaths every year related to colder temperatures rather than warmer. if anything, a warmer planet would be a benefit, not a detriment. this is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by the green activists, gore included.

 

taks

 

Sadly, on the other side there's more people than the scientists that disagrees with Gore, and they are using it to continue to enjoy relaxed anti-pollution policies by their governments. As one of my Proffessors said: "Well, they guy is clearly making a hen out of a feather, but discussing these matters without the use of sensatonalism seems to be impossible outside the scientific community. On one hand we have people who want go green on every aspect of our lives, and on the there's people who see it as serious threat to their business-interests."

[taks]

As Gorgo says, if it were merely warmer and wetter that would be largely groovy. However we are talking disturbed patterns and upheaval. Equatorial desertification, and flooding towards the poles. Never mind the loss of arable land due to sea rises.

none of which has any basis in the reality of what happens when the planet warms. these are highly exaggerated claims coming from a few highly motivated pseudo-scientists pushing an obvious agenda.

 

On a side note, the rise in populations alone could be enough to provoke many larger wars and instability. Many developing nations have populations expanding at rates much faster than their economies can grow. Dissatisfaction and extremism are far more predictable than the weather.

poverty is probably the key here, and limiting the ability to generate CO2, at least during our lifetimes, will only mean increased poverty.

 

taks

 

edit: i should add, ultimately we will need to either a) develop fusion technology or b) come to grips with the fact that nuclear energy is really safer for the people, as well as the planet and we should adopt it as the defacto source of energy. "a" is unlikely. "b" could happen quite quickly (other than for transportation) if the damned activists would get off that hobby-horse as well. we will run out of fossil-fuels looooong before they can do any irreparable harm, and we will run out of them regardless of what measures are taken to curb their use today (which would inevitably only delay whatever impending doom the doom-mongers are wishing upon us).

Edited October 12, 2007 by taks

[taks]

I think the idea is there will be more storms and more floods.

yes, that's the idea, but it has no basis in science. every time you hear someone spouting about "increased precipitation" or "more storms," it is almost always in an anecdotal context. the activists have positioned themselves in such a way that no matter what weather happens, it is due to global warming. it's a joke and anyone with a serious scientific background of any kind can see through the charade. sadly, the general population listens to the likes of gore.

 

Crops should improve rather than decline though.

most definitely. what would russia give to have a longer growing season?

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Well global warming has always been contested, only over the past decades the evidence of ozone depletion and water levels rising has been steadily acumulating.

 

It's pretty obvious whats going on, as evidenced by a now very strong consensus among the scientific comunity that the phenomenon is real.

[Nick_i_am]

The point is that humans are playing a significant role in the changes and projected changes we're seeing in the earths enviroment. Picking straws over factual this and science fiction that is still pretty much missing the point, and, as such, the thrust of the film remains in tact. The fact that someone might not like the message or the person giving it has zero impact on this. The judge in question said as much.

[jaguars4ever]

^What he he said.

 

Plus, Al Gore > YOU.

[Walsingham]

I find myself in the uncomfortable and unenviable position of being out of my depth. Can someone please help out by outlining the two cases?

 

I think it is interesting, however that as taks says it may be the case that our optimal course of action remains the same irrespective of where we sit on the question. we need to move away from combustion fuels, and rein in overpopulation.

[mkreku]

I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy!

 

Just remember that he's the same guy that's said that Sweden is probably dependant on welfare from the US and that all socialist countries will crumble eventually.. And he never provides a link with his bold claims! Same as in this thread, that is. King of BS.

[Oerwinde]

I find myself in the uncomfortable and unenviable position of being out of my depth. Can someone please help out by outlining the two cases?

 

I think it is interesting, however that as taks says it may be the case that our optimal course of action remains the same irrespective of where we sit on the question. we need to move away from combustion fuels, and rein in overpopulation.

 

I believe the two sides to the argument are

 

1) Scientists and hippies, who say greenhouse gases are hurting the environment so we should stop using everything that pollutes right now.

 

and

 

2) Businessmen, who say limiting greenhouse gases will hurt their profits, and therefore they don't hurt the environment.

[Kaftan Barlast]

and

 

 

3) people who know pollution hurts the enviroment, but cant be bothered. Like me

[Guard Dog]

I'll sell my truck and move to a cabin in the woods and live off of roots and berries as soon as Al Gore does.

[metadigital]

I find myself in the uncomfortable and unenviable position of being out of my depth. Can someone please help out by outlining the two cases?

 

I think it is interesting, however that as taks says it may be the case that our optimal course of action remains the same irrespective of where we sit on the question. we need to move away from combustion fuels, and rein in overpopulation.

 

I believe the two sides to the argument are

 

1) Scientists and hippies, who say greenhouse gases are hurting the environment so we should stop using everything that pollutes right now.

 

and

 

2) Businessmen, who say limiting greenhouse gases will hurt their profits, and therefore they don't hurt the environment.

Business PAYS the bills. The most uncontroversial, least dangerous course of action is ALWAYS to do nothing, but that won't feed the world's population and improve their lives. Sure business is profit-centred, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily the enemy here. As has been demonstrated, good green management CAN be used as a business driver, though certainly not for the developing world, where these new "green energy" strictures will only cause suffering to the people who least deserve it and can least afford it.

[taks]

1) Scientists and hippies, who say greenhouse gases are hurting the environment so we should stop using everything that pollutes right now.

that's absolutely untrue. most scientists believe only one thing about GW: the planet has warmed. in fact, most also acknowledge that it has been flat, with a slight down-trend over the course of the last decade. the whole "consensus" idea is a myth. scientists get signed on to the "consensus" simply by agreeing to one single point, and suddenly "they're in."

 

i can't recall when consensus actually meant anything anyway. it is largely a media and activist ploy to lend credence to an idea that is otherwise unpalatable.

 

2) Businessmen, who say limiting greenhouse gases will hurt their profits, and therefore they don't hurt the environment.

funny, but not many of the skeptics are businessmen. many scientists, and the number is growing, disagree with most of the hypothesis for one simple reason: a lack of evidence other than things have warmed a bit. i'm just an amateur that knows how to analyze data. it's got nothing to do with profits, though i must admit i'm very leery of the people of the US being hit with a tax bill that covers india and china's so-called "green" transgressions. utter nonsense, and any one else in the world that pays taxes should be outraged as well.

 

taks

[taks]

I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy

i'm curious how your simple mind can come to the conclusion that this has anything to do with "right wing"???

what i have that you don't is extensive training in statistics, statistical data analysis methods and above all, i understand logic. something that apparently fails you.

 

Just remember that he's the same guy that's said that Sweden is probably dependant on welfare from the US and that all socialist countries will crumble eventually.. And he never provides a link with his bold claims! Same as in this thread, that is. King of BS.

um, the US is 1/3 the entire global economy you dolt. all socialist economies WILL crumble, and the evidence has already shown that nearly all have. god you're an imbecile.

 

taks