|
|
Post by Chewey on Oct 12, 2007 4:25:29 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/ts_nm/nobel_peace_gore_ipcc_dc_1Now I realize the list of Nobel Laureates includes controversial figures such as Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, but my gutshot draw hope has been for Gore to win the Nobel Prize, run for president, and finally give us a respectable presidential candidate out of the field of Hillary, Giuliani, and Obama. Remember, he did win the popular vote once before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Graymar on Oct 12, 2007 6:32:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 12, 2007 8:41:10 GMT -5
It's pretty well known on this board what my political views are, and while I respect what Al Gore is trying to do, there just are too many holes in what he's done for it to be credible. Global warming is a fact; the amount of it that's man-made is still debatable (although I happen to think we'd better start doing something about it ASAP regardless of the cause). Scientific consensus seems to be pointing us in that direction, and I'm actually glad there are some out there who question the accepted truth, because asking questions keeps policy from becoming dogmatic and unthinking.
Al Gore is no longer a credible candidate for president, in my view. Besides, it's pretty late for him to get in the game. Yes, I'd vote for him over Hillary on the basis of his other policies, and I'd vote for him over any Republican, but that doesn't mean I'd be a big supporter.
I'm glad that he's at least furthering awareness about the issue. I'm just sad that his hypocrisy is coming to the fore, as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dukedave on Oct 12, 2007 9:06:48 GMT -5
This thread has led me to a stunning revelation.
Al Gore is Swarm.
Swarm's been off line for awhile preparing his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aquinas on Oct 12, 2007 9:45:44 GMT -5
This diminishes the value/importance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Not as bad as Yassir Arafat winning it....but jeez. The guy makes a credibility-deficient movie about a theory....and gets a Nobel?
I'm sure there were much more deserving people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 12, 2007 15:06:33 GMT -5
He invented the internet though, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 12, 2007 15:28:23 GMT -5
""During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
He didn't say anything that wasn't completely true. Gore was on the high-speed telecommunications bandwagon when he was still a Tennessee Representative in the late '70s.
Pardon me if I'm not bowled over the fact that a whopping nine errors were found in his film, either. Obviously it's not something to just brush under the rug, but nobody (who isn't a non-scientist whackjob like Bjorn Lonborg) has been able to dispute the main tenets of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 12, 2007 15:29:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Oct 12, 2007 15:36:55 GMT -5
Hmm, I wonder what Trav thinks about all of this?  |
|
|
|
Post by Aquinas on Oct 12, 2007 15:47:31 GMT -5
""During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."He didn't say anything that wasn't completely true. Gore was on the high-speed telecommunications bandwagon when he was still a Tennessee Representative in the late '70s. Pardon me if I'm not bowled over the fact that a whopping nine errors were found in his film, either. Obviously it's not something to just brush under the rug, but nobody (who isn't a non-scientist whackjob like Bjorn Lonborg) has been able to dispute the main tenets of the film. Oh, I think there have been plenty of credible scientists who have questioned man's impact on global warming. They just don't tend to get the air time since global warming is a darling subject of the media. Do we need to be better about the environment? Absolutely. But I'm not cool with something that is a theory getting a free pass as fact because people want to believe it. Let's deal in facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Werner Mueck on Oct 12, 2007 16:15:31 GMT -5
He also killed Manbearpig. You have to give him credit for that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 12, 2007 16:45:33 GMT -5
""During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."He didn't say anything that wasn't completely true. Gore was on the high-speed telecommunications bandwagon when he was still a Tennessee Representative in the late '70s. Pardon me if I'm not bowled over the fact that a whopping nine errors were found in his film, either. Obviously it's not something to just brush under the rug, but nobody (who isn't a non-scientist whackjob like Bjorn Lonborg) has been able to dispute the main tenets of the film. Oh, I think there have been plenty of credible scientists who have questioned man's impact on global warming. They just don't tend to get the air time since global warming is a darling subject of the media. Do we need to be better about the environment? Absolutely. But I'm not cool with something that is a theory getting a free pass as fact because people want to believe it. Let's deal in facts. Very well stated. |
|
|
|
Post by WTIC on Oct 12, 2007 17:14:40 GMT -5
All that I can picture is Gore sitting at home wearing a shirt that reads, "I ran for President and all that I got was this lousy Nobel Prize"!
Now, THAT'S funny! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 12, 2007 20:27:44 GMT -5
Oh, I think there have been plenty of credible scientists who have questioned man's impact on global warming. They just don't tend to get the air time since global warming is a darling subject of the media. Who, specifically? And to be more accurate, who, specifically, who isn't working for a payday from oil companies and related industries? Or people like Lonborg, who isn't even a scientist but has somehow amassed credibility in the minds of some because of his grudge against Greenpeace. I'm not sure there are a lot of people--who aren't nihilists--who want to believe that the earth is headed towards anything from future inconveniences to environmental catastrophes as a result of our recklessness and consumption. Let's deal in facts? Okay, then I repeat my earlier question: where are these credible scientists--who by the way seem to make up a tiny minority of the scientific community--who are suggesting that man's impact on global warming isn't a big deal? That means names, backgrounds, and papers cited. (Supporting a "darling media subject" doesn't pay the bills as well as crowing the Big Oil party line, so the "They're after this for the money" card isn't going to be a factor in this discussion.) |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Oct 13, 2007 22:02:38 GMT -5
He won it, get over it.
Who cares how many holes were in his movie, it's right because the earth is going to hell in a hand basket. Who cares who's fault it is or what's causing it, we better just focus on fixing it or all the rest of the BS won't matter because we won't be here.
Side note, does anyone buy into this doomsday thing? 12-21-12, even science is saying something big might happen ( Earth shift on it's axis or something, which would cause global disasters). Me, I'm just watching and listening right now but it really looks like there's something to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Beck on Oct 13, 2007 22:53:30 GMT -5
okay...time to hear from a conservative... Have to throw this out...Nobel Peace Prize awarded in 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin...and we have all seen how that is working out...wonder if in 10 - 15 years the Nobel Prize Organization will be kicking themselves for this year's award. On Al Gore winning and global warming...Both a joke to the people who really earned the Nobel Peace Prize. This topic has caused more dissension among the scientific community than any other...yet it gets a peace prize...come on...wonder how much that cost Al? Hey did Al fly his jet to the ceremony...that sure is helping the environment and keeping the green footprints small...of course he has purchased his carbon offsets so that makes it AL-OK. Anyone ever look up who is making money on the carbon offset technology...don't worry Al Gore and his environmental friendly friends are, but you'd never know that would you...I am one to admit that Bush is making a killing on oil...do i wish he would do something about it, yep...will he, nope...can AL really do anything about global warming...nope...do i wish he would...yep...are they both making a TON of cash...yep...BAD ON US FOR LETTING BOTH OF THEM DO THIS. Someone tell me how does AL Gore end up on this list? nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/Global Warming is a political media ploy...for the left, just like the GWOT is a political media boom for the right. (Me personally i think we are currently in more danger from the GWOT versus Global Warming...south central Colorado is supposed to get hit with 1 - 7 inches of snow tonight...right on time...dunno about this global warming stuff but i can definitely put my finger on bad guys who don't like the our way of life...) If you are a scientist who disagrees with the popular way of thinking you will not be heard from because the liberal media doesn't want that side publicised...tath is the truth sorry. The liberal media and left are going to run with this because they can and no one will stop them. Schools where the research is being conducted are going to continue to on the party line because there is MASSIF money at stake...just like keeping oil price up...WAY BIG MONEY for both sides (concerning oil and global warming) for either side to say hey, we can really do something about it. Plus, both side can still point fingers at each other and keep the public's mind off of real issues. so now for the list of global warming sites that are not on the party (left) line...I know that Schnitt is a conservative, but if you take the time to really read through some of this stuff you'll see that there are two sides and that what this whole debate comes down to is MONEY...as it always does in politics...on both sides. schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html |
|
|
|
Post by Knapik on Oct 13, 2007 22:59:41 GMT -5
Yeah, let's nuke 'em all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Oct 14, 2007 9:50:51 GMT -5
I actually agree with a lot that's in your post, Pete B. But this: south central Colorado is supposed to get hit with 1 - 7 inches of snow tonight...right on time is not what global warming is about. It's more subtle than that. It's kind of maddening when you hear someone say the second there's a blizzard or a cold snap, "Well, so much for that global warming stuff!" It's about trends over time, and those seem to be putting temperatures as a whole on the rise. Now...as I stated elsewhere, how much is human-induced and how much is just natural cycles, that's still a topic for discussion. But if we can try to do anything at all to reduce the impact we're having on it, or even the impact nature is having on it, that's something worth pursuing. Just look at all the time-elapsed pictures of glaciers that were there as recently as 50 years ago that are just gone now. Something's up. And I was in college when the whole Arafat/Israelis Nobel happened, and I still thought it was a joke then, too. I guess intentions are good enough to win a prize in Scandinavia. |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Oct 14, 2007 10:30:39 GMT -5
Mark, Pete, Pete B. or anyone. Do you put any stock in anything happening on 12-21-12 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Beck on Oct 14, 2007 10:42:28 GMT -5
I actually agree with a lot that's in your post, Pete B. But this: south central Colorado is supposed to get hit with 1 - 7 inches of snow tonight...right on time is not what global warming is about. It's more subtle than that. It's kind of maddening when you hear someone say the second there's a blizzard or a cold snap, "Well, so much for that global warming stuff!" It's about trends over time, and those seem to be putting temperatures as a whole on the rise. Now...as I stated elsewhere, how much is human-induced and how much is just natural cycles, that's still a topic for discussion. But if we can try to do anything at all to reduce the impact we're having on it, or even the impact nature is having on it, that's something worth pursuing. Just look at all the time-elapsed pictures of glaciers that were there as recently as 50 years ago that are just gone now. Something's up. I know...i just love adding the fact that we are still seeing the same weather patterns we have for oh...since they have been keep weather records. The thing to remember about global warming and cooling is that they are cyclical...it is going to happen...the earth warms and cools over periods sometime hotter, some times cooler. What i really hope people will understand is that AL Gore really doesn't care about global warming...he is in it for the money...just like bush is in oil for the money...and every single politician is in it for the money. Why would anyone spend millions and millions to win an election and a end up in a position that has an annual pay of a couple of hundred thousand? Because they know once they are in the position they can turn policy toward their interests and make more than the millions it took to get the position. Capitalism in its truest sense of the word. Butcher...I'll have to look into the 12-21-12 thing, but i doubt there would be any cosmic event as the calendar is a human invention...and some soothsayer is just using that "interesting date" to make predictions. but if i find anything interesting I'll let you know. Lets just say that i don't think the date really holds any course over cosmic events that aren't man-made... |
|
