Captain's Quarters -

I don't know about the polar bears, but I think of the poor humans drowning in Al Gore's B.S.!

Those choices would have actually focused on real efforts to bring peace and freedom to millions of people. That's what I thought the Nobel Peace Prize meant to honor

Well I guess you were wrong!

Put this under the heading of lefty's who don't want Bush to succeed in Iraq, and righties who don't want Clinton to succeed on health care ...

the whole political scene is a royal toxic mess and the left and right blogs feed into it ... we have gotten to a point now where one side blasts the other side for winning an award and swift boating it to death,

Two different committees decide the Nobel Peace Prize winner and the scientific winners. The science prizes are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, but the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee chosen by the Norwegian Parliament.

I haven't seen anyone anywhere opine on how infuriated Bill Clinton must be. He made it pretty clear he expected to get a Nobel peace prize for his middle east diplomacy and it didn't happen. Now this. He can't be very happy.

The whole thing became farce when the peace prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger.

Cap'n Ed: [The Nobel Committee] might also consider what this has to do with "peace". The Nobel committee has moved far afield from its original mandate to honor those who actually work to avoid armed conflict or to end it and have simply decided to use their award to promote a distinct political agenda.

Exactly. Whether one accepts Algore's premise (and I think it's utterly full of crap and perhaps the worst misuse of "science" for political purposes in human history), it has little or nothing to do with "peace". What conflict has Gore's claptrap helped end? What warring factions have "An Inconvenient Truth" brought to the negotiating table?

The answers, of course, are "none". I can only assume that the Noble Committee is comprised of lefty morons of the most rabidly ignorant stripe who are so intent on sticking it to to the capitalist west (and especially the United States) that they would elevate what amounts to the leader of a cult to the status of a "Peace Prize" winner.

Oh, well. I seem to recall that they also gave Arafat a Peace Prize. Kind of makes me question their judgement... if not their sanity.

Capt. Ed, how about a list of Gore's Noble Prize Winner peers, just to give this story prespective. The prize just aibn't what it used to be

I'll bet the monks in Burma are celebrating Al Gore's award today.

GalleyWest

we have gotten to a point now where one side blasts the other side for winning an award and swift boating it to death

The deterioration of political discourse will be visible today in the reaction to Al Gore’s winning the Nobel Prize for Peace, just like we’ve seen in the sliming of Graeme Frost. Death threats to a 12-year-old, accusations that the former vice president is lying about the data and effects of global warming. Respect for different opinions seems in short supply in our nation – haven’t we enshrined free speech in our country’s highest law, our U.S. Constitution?

Congratulations, Mr. Vice President!

Go to any envronmentalist blog and mention that you do not believe in AGW.

The see how much "peace" breaks out.

I've heard a statement in the past about the goals of the Nobel Committee, and picking Algore is perfect for them, as it was with Arafat and Jimmy Carter!

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

What I remember most about Algore, non, is that inthe Fall of 2000, in a vain attempt to momentarily court the Christian vote, he attempted to tell us we could ~~~KNOW~~~ he was "one of us" because of how important he felt John 16:3 is.

Eternity is going to be a very very very long time. And it appears that Algore has only made his calling very very sure.

That is very sad.

While you can have a difference of opinion, you can't have a difference of facts.

There are no facts supporting the AGW myth.
Gore's movie was full of lies, and that has been proven now in court.

Gore wins???

I demand a recount.

SorrySorry but I can’t let this pass without mention. Everyone here should go back and read the very recent post on the Atlas Shrugged thread, from South Africa. Then grasp the fact that in 1993 The Nobel Peace Prize was given to ANC leader Nelson Mandela.

I certainly do not hold Gore's "achievements" up there with Eli Wiesel [1986], Ann Sung Su Kyi [1991], Mother Theresa [1979], Andrei Sakharov [1975], UNICEF [1965], or Albert Schweitzer [1952], among others.

The recent decline started when it was awarded to Kofi Annan in 2001, with the notable exception of Muhaamed Yunus and the Grameen Bank last year.

When a Peace Prize is awarded for hyperbole and not for actual accomplishment, guess it's become just another bit of bling.

Mike that same award was ALSO shared by F.W. de Klerk. It was a joint prize. Granted for the joint dismantling of Apartheid and for peaceful South African reconciliation.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 8:35 AM

Mike that same award was ALSO shared by F.W. de Klerk. It was a joint prize. Granted for the joint dismantling of Apartheid and for peaceful South African reconciliation.

coldwarrier, do not results count for anything?

Do you suppose the Nobel committee wants Al Gore to try a different job in the near future, and hopes to boost his chances to get it?

First of all, I would be more inclined to vote for Mr. Gore if he had really invented the Internet. Or created a movie with the title "Don't Taze Me Bro"

Would Big Al throw his hat in the political ring while he's in the midst of American Capitalism at it's finest? When are we going to realize that fantasy out-sells reality? Haven't you people been listening to Hillary? "An entitlement in every pot at any cost". Gore couldn't hold a candle to the Clinton machine despite the "fractured honors" he's recieved.

Seems the results in South Africa were notable, peaceful, a lot better than the bloddy and violent confrontation which had been predicted by both the proponents of the South African government and proponents of the ANC just a few years before.

As a side note, since 1901, when the Peace Prize was first established, there have been about 20 years when it was not awarded at all, the Committee finding no suitable candidate. Gore's winning this year, jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Change, shows that perhaps the Committee should have better abstained fromn awarding it this year.

We should just count ourselves lucky that it wasn't given to Michael Moore, who made a couple of other inane propaganda films that the committe undoubtedly loved.

For the details of the British court decision, you might want to check out this discussion.

Sorry--link didn't come through. Go to:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

and scroll down.

KevinMc: The deterioration of political discourse will be visible today in the reaction to Al Gore’s winning the Nobel Prize for Peace, just like we’ve seen in the sliming of Graeme Frost. Death threats to a 12-year-old, accusations that the former vice president is lying about the data and effects of global warming. Respect for different opinions seems in short supply in our nation – haven’t we enshrined free speech in our country’s highest law, our U.S. Constitution?

YGTBSM!

Try very, very hard to understand this: we think that Gore is LYING. L-Y-I-N-G. You know: deliberately telling a falsehood? Now he's gotten a prestigious award for it. Can you understand that this makes us a little (grinds teeth with fury) upset? Try to imagine the reaction is certain other quarters if Bush got the Peace Prize for removing Saddam from power; I think that this may help you to understand how we feel.

Please also try to understand that nobody is suggesting abridging Gore's "free speech" rights. He's perfectly at liberty to spout whatever lunacy he (apparently) believes in without fear of penalty. Nobody here has suggested that he be arrested, imprisoned, hanged, or anything else (cf. monks in Burma). What he is NOT entitled to is to spout his claptrap without fear of CRITICISM.

This award to Gore, while it is hardly a surprise, is utterly infuriating. It is a travesty and makes a mockery of the Peace Prize.

If we weren't sure the Nobel prize was utterly meaningless before, we can be now. They might as well give the damn thing to Michael Moore. It's getting hard to tell the difference between the two anyway.

The reasoning behind Gore getting the "peace" prize is that the effects of Global Warming could cause of shortage of natural resources which would pit nations against each other.

Think of it as a "pre-emptive" peace prize.

Rose,

You assumed that man has a soul to lose.

Me (I am a scientist)? I need evidence!

Too bad there isn't a Nobel Prize for Head in the Sandism, because a lot of yahoos around this site would be in fierce competition for the honours.

Goebbels would be proud.......

It's sad that the reality-based community, the self-proclaimed free thinkers and skeptics, completely dummy up when instructed to profess without question that the global warming debate is over.

Let me tell you something, computer simulations do not prove theories. I would go so far as to say that, with respect to scientific method, computer simulation is one notch up from naive speculation; basically it's systematic and informed speculation. But even informed speculation is a shamefully flimsy basis for shutting down debate. Don't you free thinkers think so?

If these hacks really believed their propaganda, they'd be evacuating cities that lie below sea level. Cities like New Orleans. And yet they register no alarm as to the logical implications, the real consequences of the 20-foot rise in ocean levels they themselves predict.

Why are they not demanding the orderly relocation of New Orleans? Answer: because they know this isn't about science. It's about communist-style social control. It's a good gimmick, for sure. But this is some bad dope, my friends. Lots of things just don't fit in their account of what's going on here.

Cool. The stage is now set for Bush to win it in '08, right? Or will they give it to Hillary! since it is becoming the equivalent of a Nobel Poke-In-Bush's-Eye Prize?

Also lost in the "9-Errors" ruling is that it was approved for use (though Ed does mention that) and the the judge said it makes a strong case that global warming is occuring and is cause by man.

The judge cited 9 points in the film he believes fall outside of thinking of mainstream science, and ruled that those points be given context when shown.

Now, I haven't seen the film, but I'm assuming there are more than 9 points made in it. Probably a lot more than 9. And the judge does not disagree with Gore's main premise in fact his ruling show there is benefit of the film and it makes good and important points that English school children should be exposed to.

There are no facts supporting the AGW myth.

Not according to this court ruling.

Think he'll fly commercial overseas to pick up the award?

Tom Shipley, the judge wasn't speaking as a scientist when he said that the film makes good and important points.

He's speaking above his pay grade.

The extent of his expertise is to establish whether Al Gore lied.

He found that Al Gore did lie.

He has every right to blow kisses to the hard-left to maintain street credibility, but his comment on being personally impressed by the "main premise" is utterly insignificant. It is of no more consequence than if the judge had said that in his personal opinion, Al Gore had nice hair.

You can't shine this apple. It's rotten to the core.

Terrorist loving Jimmah Catuh got it last year didn't he? And now junk science buff, Al Gore (is it me or has he grown about 3 more chins). Guess the once prestigious award doesn't stand for much these days, huh? At least it doesn't to me.

Too bad there isn't a Nobel Prize for Head in the Sandism, because a lot of yahoos around this site would be in fierce competition for the honours.

Gee, like lefties and terrorism? There's a hell of a lot more evidence of Islamic terrorism than AGW.

AGW is a religious cult, and a psychological reaction, technically called "displacement," from the inability to confront their own fear of violent religious nutjob reactionaries who want to blow up the West. Read Dr. Sanity for details. Also, part of the hatred of Eurotrash for the Joooooos. My rant hereby ensues about JC & his stint on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show:

Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive comments than Ann Coulter’s about the Jews on CNN with Wolf Blitzer without a peep of protest simply because he is a man of the Left.

There is a ginormous double standard about everything in the media—-look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren’t Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hyperventilating left would echo from the rooftops.

Instead, the unwatched 30Rock is the TV equivalent of Air America. As an SDS member who stayed at my Ann Arbor home [Mark Rudd had been on the cover of Time magazine the year before for a Columbia U. takeover in May, ‘68], said to me among other mantras:

“No fault on the Left.”

Still holds true today, as does Mark Rudd’s second piece of advice to me:

“Dare to cheat, dare to win.”

Anyone watching “An Inconvenient Truth” will appreciate how apropos that little aphorism remains to this day.

Like hysteric Al. Or hypocritic Al.

Jeff,

First off, the judge does not say Gore lied.

And if you're so willing to take the judge's word on these 9 errors, why do you dismiss his opinion that this film makes a strong case for action against global warming and that British school children would benefit from seeing it?

Come on, he won the award for raising awareness of the issue.

Why is it that there is such Bile coming from the right on every issue? Your bile will be your undoing.

Its not as if the problem does not exist at all. Yet so many on the right want to continue to pretend that because there is SOME (and so very well cited and over hyped on the right) evidence that not all these claims are correct, that NONE of the scientific community can be correct at all.

The fact of the matter is that there is a large consensus among the scientific community that there is a problem. Al Gore, whether completely correct or not, is no better than a judge, a ruler of law, to point to OR AWAY from the actual problem.

Yet the right is (largely) suspicious of science, which declares that in fact human evolved over millions of years instead of 20K like the creationists hold (because they read the bible incorrectly).

For whatever reason, the right is wrong on this. They may be able to blame Al Gore, vociferously pounding their shoe on the table while screaming that it is all a LIE. Meanwhile, The arctic IS melting, Sea ice IS at an all time low. And the fact of the matter is that our economy (the real God of the right) could benefit from efforts to make ourselves more lean, more efficient. There are thousands of jobs to be had.

But hey, if you just scream loud enough, if you blame everyone of liberal bias.....maybe you will prevail.

The only common link to all your problems is you.

Foston

|One or more of the people involved in the six-nation talks that has avoided war over North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs would have also seemed a more germane choice.|

Wouldn't that involve President Bush?

If the Nobel wasn't so politicized (the very point of this blog post, I know), I might concede the possibility. But yeah, there must surely be people who have done more in peace than to travel around the world telling people why they shouldn't travel around the world.

>>>>>And if you're so willing to take the judge's word on these 9 errors, why do you dismiss his opinion that this film makes a strong case for action against global warming and that British school children would benefit from seeing it?

Selective reading. Par for the course.

Foston

The scientific ignorance displayed in this comment section is staggering.

You can pick apart Gore's movie all you want, but it doesn't that global warming is not a real phenomena. Doesn't it ever strike you as curious that all the flakes they bring out to say that global warming is false are getting funding from oil and gas companies?

Haven't we seen this whole game before when advocates bought and paid for by big Tobacco tried to tell us that scientists were lying about how tobacco causes cancer?

Wake up people. This is not a conservative vs. liberal question. This is a reality question.

DaveInBoca -- There is a ginormous double standard about everything in the media—-look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren’t Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hyperventilating left would echo from the rooftops.

---------------------------------

Except, Tina Fey supports Guiliani.

Try getting your news somewhere other than Bill O'Reilly. He is just pissed at her for making fun of his sexual harrassment suit on SNL.

Tom, okay Judge Burton didn't say Al Gore lied, he said Al Gore said things that were "distinctly alarmist," "one-sided," and "exaggerated."

I'll buy that. I was wrong, there was no finding that Al Gore lied in this case.

But note, isn't this exactly what the hard-left says President Bush did in the run-up to the Iraq war? That he was "alarmist," gave a "one-sided" argument, and "exaggerated" claims of WMD?

Funny that the left seems very convinced that to issue alarmist, one-sided, and exaggerated proclamations is to lie. Worthy of impeachment. But in the case of Al Gore, it's a little snafu, nothing to worry about.

Anyway, your point is well taken, Tom. I agree, there was no finding of a deliberate lie.

but a conservative group of actors

If it were a conservative group of actors and writers, it wouldn't be funny.

Now Gore has only to marry Paris Hilton, or Pamela Anderson (opss.., this one is taken) to become an all time MSM darling.
In the meantime Leonardo DiCaprio is reportedly green from envy.

Uh oh, here come Al's Acolytes. The goon squad:

"zere ist no evidence zat ze global varming phenomenon ist false, und die kritiks muss be mit die big oil companies."

Shills.

Jeff from Mpls: If these hacks really believed their propaganda, they'd be evacuating cities that lie below sea level. Cities like New Orleans. And yet they register no alarm as to the logical implications, the real consequences of the 20-foot rise in ocean levels they themselves predict.

Why are they not demanding the orderly relocation of New Orleans?

Excellent point. It's also been said that, "I'll take global warming seriously when those who profess to believe in it live like THEY take it seriously."

Tom Shipley: The judge cited 9 points in the film he believes fall outside of thinking of mainstream science, and ruled that those points be given context when shown.

Now, I haven't seen the film, but I'm assuming there are more than 9 points made in it. Probably a lot more than 9.

ROFLMAO! In other words, a judge found that Gore was wrong (less charitably: Gore LIED) about not less than NINE points in his film, but that's OK because you're SURE that he told the truth about... um... about a lot of other stuff.

I'm trying to imagine people like Shipley in their private lives:

SHIPLEY (runs into house, clearly excited): Honey, guess what! I just finished talking to this nice man, and he told me that he's got this wonderful new siding he can put on our house!

MRS. SHIPLEY: Really?

SHIPLEY: Yeah! He said that this stuff will reduce our energy bill by 110%, triple our property value, prevent radon from seeping into the house, make the shower hotter in the morning, wash the dishes, help Tommy with his math homework, clear up Janie's acne, walk the dog, help me get a better job, AND do a whole bunch of other great stuff! And it only costs $9999. I'm gonna go get the cash out of the bank right now, 'cuz he said he can't accept checks. Oh, and we need to give him our credit card numbers so he can check our credit score!"

Several days later...

POLICE OFFICER (making herculean effort to remain professional): Did you happen to notice the make of his car or the license plate number?

SHIPLEY (puzzled and abashed): I'm sorry, officer, I didn't notice his license plate number or what kind of car he was driving.

POLICE OFFICER: Well, we'll do the best we can to find him. I'm sorry that he cheated you out of your money.

SHIPLEY: He didn't cheat! Maybe some of the things he told me weren't true, but he DID tell the truth when he said it would cost $9999 in cash.

MRS. SHIPLEY (shouts from the front door): Honey! I just checked our credit card statements and they are all maxed out. Do you know anything about that? You haven't been to Las Vegas lately, have you?

SHIPLEY: No, honey. I can't imagine what's happening.

ROFLMAO

Honestly, Tom Shipley, I hope that you let your wife make the important decisions in your house. And that she doesn't let you out without supervision by somebody a little less gullible than you are... like a four year-old.

So, Foston, you would put Al Gore on par, on equal footing, as Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, Ang Sung Su Kyi, Andrei Sakharov, George Marshall, Medicins sans Frontieres, and do so with a straight face?

Yes, the Arctic icepack is melting, but is growing in Antarctica. Same globe. Same warming.

Yes, there is climate change. Yes, a lot of what humans do is causing a recognizable portion of that change. But, there is no empirical evidence that this current change is solely and directly caused ONLY by humnan interaction in toto.

The geological record shows many many other global climate changes. The Sahara was once a vibrant grassland, forested in many parts, and sustained large populations and even cities. Did CO2 emissions from SUV's cause that change?

Yes, we, the humans, need to mind what we do and not contribute additionally to the pollution of our planet, alleviate it whenever and wherever possible. But therein lies the politicization of the Global Warming problem...do only the post-industiral developed states such as the US and Europe have to be the only ones to pay the costs to prevent global warming, assuming that we, the humans, are the sole cause of it? Do not China, India, Russia and other industrialized aras and emergent industrialized nations have to pay the same costs? In the current rubric, they are exempt in large part under the Kyoto arrangment. Carbon credits? Is planting a tree in Uganda really going to affect the deforestation in Brazil, or the SUV emissions in Los Angeles? Carbon credits are a scam. Al Gore is one of the largest proponents and champions of carbon credits. What exactly do they do? Where is the hard science behind them? Ideally, ALL SUV's and high-carbon emitting vehicles should be banned, globally. Not going to happen. Not here. Not abroad. Too much status attached to them. Too much money and popular and political support to even consider banning them.

There in lies the problem with the 2007 Peace Prize, given to Al Gore and the Intergovenmental Panel on Global Warming. Without the full array of substantiated science confirming across the board the conjectures and pronouncements of both, their utterings are, to date, hyperbolic. Hyperbole is not accomplishment.

In a few years, when and if there is indeed a successful marriage of science across the board, providing actual causation, banishment of exceptions, a definitive explanation of all the other previous and many long before humans global climate changes, then, perhaps it may well be appropriate for both Al Gore and the IGPW to be granted this recognition.

But not now.

Many people have called to our attention the killings in Darfur. Have they been granted this award for calling it to our attention? many have called to our attention the scourge of international slavery and pedophilia. Have they been granted this award for calling it to our attention? The list of those calling something of a global nature to our attention is long, very long.

And that is the point of the disdain many of us have for today's announcement from Oslo.

So they gave Carter a "Peace Prize" to kick Bush in the leg, and Carter bears significant responsiblity for the rise of Islamism.

They gave Arafat a "Peace Prize" for laying down his arms and bellying up to the peace table, and he turned around and went back to murdering people almost immediately.

So I guess if the pattern holds Algore will not only continue his jet setting ways - flying all over the earth to tell the plebs to stop using fossil fuels - but actually start designing supersized private jets for his friends in the environmental movement.

We have a new Nobel Price category:

The Nobel Greenpeace Price!!!

Jeff, I agree that there is a similarity, but I would counter that (and I don't know this for sure because I haven't seen the film) that 9-points don't seem to undercut the main thesis of the film that global warming is caused by man and needs immediate action (according to the judge).

Bush's main thesis was that the war in Iraq was necessary because of the "imminent" threat Iraq's WMD stockpiles and nuclear program posed to the US. That main thesis was proven undeniably false. Without that threat, the invasion would not have happened.

Most who doubt global warming believe that man should do a better job controlling pollution and promoting alternative fuel sources.

Gore is promoting action that is by and large something that would have a positive effect on the world.

Anyone who has lived through a war I'm sure would agree that it's not a "good" endeavor, even when the cause is just. To go to war under false pretense is inexcusable.

RE: Foston (October 12, 2007 9:44 AM)

"The fact of the matter is that there is a large consensus among the scientific community that there is a problem..."

I'm just excerpting this for brevity.

There are various consensus here and this particular one is questionably acquired. Nevertheless, conceding for the sake of argument that there is statistically significant increases in global nominal surface temperatures not attributable to "weather," there remains the question as to whether it is anthropogenic, a question which we cannot answer due to lack of adequate, composite data. We, or the consensus du juor, are reduced to considerable speculation and extrapolation.

We need even consider whether or not the phenomenon of AGW is beneficial or detrimental. To the extent that Earth is able to reach a livable homeostasis for the human organism and the biodiversity required to sustain it, warming could actually improve the human condition. Likewise, it could hurt it. Or, given enough time, fluctuations could do both simultaneously depending on locale. The point is that this is less a scientific endeavor as much as it is a political one in our current environment. I don't need Al Gore and his high-octane global tour to keep me informed.

His hypocrisy remains self-evident, his parade a self-edifying money tree he shakes for carbon offsets.

I'd say Nobel Price for Al Gore marks an offical end to the Era of Reason.

YAAAWWWWWNNNNN

The Nobel Peace Prize has simply become another award that liberals give to themselves for the "courage" of being liberals.

Whether AGW is happening or not, is not the issue here. If one of the scientific Nobel Prizes were awarded to Al Gore, while there are those that would disagree with his premise, that would be fine. Global warming is a scientific issue.

The issue with awarding Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is that AGW has nothing to do with peace; highlighting it does not stop a war, nor save lives, nor dismantle so grave an injustice as Apartheid. In short, I prefer the person to win the Nobel Peace Prize to have actually fostered peace. According to Alfred Nobel's will (as excerpted from http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html), the Nobel Peace Prize is to be given as follows: "... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Which of these three things has Al Gore done? That is a serious question, so if you want to answer, I expect a serious response. Which one and supporting evidence.

Monkei,

Again, "swift boating" means repeating a person's lies, after it's obvious they are lies, to the unapologetic person over and over.

Kerry made his boat, and he sank with it, and he stands on its deck still today.

We have similar problems at present with Gore. We had the global cooling scare in the 1960s, and now we have a global warming scare 40 years later. Oh dear, everybody stop exhaling, and those abortions are patriotic, because they can be counted as carbon credits! Shoot the moo-moo cow, because it emits methane!

There are legitimate scientific questions as to whether we humans are causing this. And the drastic actions the Goracle requires for his unproven assertions don't hurt us rich Americans nearly as much as they hurt the poor Chinese and Latin Americans.

To be honest, Goracle's carbon footprint is easily 100 times mine. If he really believes this stuff, he can quit the globetrotting, fancy vacations, corporate self-promotion.

We know the politics of the Norweigian Parliament. That's all that's being advertised here.

Monique, this is from the nobel committee's press release.

"Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 9:15 AM
"The reasoning behind Gore getting the "peace" prize is that the effects of Global Warming could cause of shortage of natural resources which would pit nations against each other."

"Think of it as a "pre-emptive" peace prize."

So, by this superior thought Tom, if FDR had dropped an A-bomb on Hitler in '39, he would have garnered the "prize"? (now I know the "bomb" had not been perfected yet, but aren't we talkin' about fantasies here?)

Next year Amamadjihadi launches a nuke strike against Israel and is awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.

So, by this superior thought Tom, if FDR had dropped an A-bomb on Hitler in '39, he would have garnered the "prize"? (now I know the "bomb" had not been perfected yet, but aren't we talkin' about fantasies here?)

No because the act of dropping a bomb and killing thousands of people is inherently un-peaceful.

Tom Shipley,
Global warming was supposed to cause very violent hurricanes, but for the time being we have second year in the row of very limited hurricane activity.
The bottom line: Scientists have NO CLUE about the weather and climate, so voodoo shamans are taking over.

Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Fiction Prize.

Before Al Gore and the UN work this year, no one except for a few scientists were concerned about global warming, and no one was doing anything about it. The work of Al Gore and the UN made everyone aware of global warming. Their work this year directly led to the development of the Kyoto treaty. For this, they deserve the Nobel prize.

I should add, that Al Gore showed extreme courage in fighting against the international and scientific establishment, which is filled with global warming deniers.

"Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Fiction Prize."

Put it on the shelf next to Walter Durante's bloody Pulitzer Prize.

Seems the lunatic left regularly gives a prize to the bestest lefty liar and this year, the absolutely worthless Al Gore (who failed to steal the 2000 election, BTW) took the (urine) cake.

Olaf Anderson,
Check your facts and timeline before writing nonsense.

TomB

Should I use a "sarcasm" tag?

So Gore should get a Nobel PEACE Prize because his movie MAY prevent future wars?

This is like giving Paul Ehrlich a Nobel Peace Prize in the 1960's or 70's for his books and lectures on the "population bomb"

Or maybe to update the issue a bit, Mark Steyn should get an award for his books and lectures on the demographic death of the west.

I'd like to give it to Fred Thompson for his warning message about the impending social security crisis from Tuesday's debate.

Oh, heck -- let's just give to Brett Favre for throwing that stupid interception Sunday night, giving the game to the Bears and preventing thousands of Chicago sports fans from killing themselves over the fate of the Bears and Cubs.

let's just give to Brett Favre for throwing that stupid interception Sunday night, giving the game to the Bears and preventing thousands of Chicago sports fans from killing themselves over the fate of the Bears and Cubs.

Too bad he couldn't do anything for Brewer and Badger fans, eh?

Wow, Olaf...that really sums it up. Can I borrow your copy of "Global Warming for Dummies"?

Sheesh!!! With that depth of insight, are you sure your name isn't Ole Anderson?

Perhaps the greatest part of Gore's prize is watching the Haters sit around assuring each other that he doesn't deserve it.

Whether or not GW is man-made or not, we still have to deal with it and it's still going to be a problem. It would behoove people here to look for solutions instead of casting aspersions.

rvastar,

I think it does sum it up, but I see that using sarcasm is not appreciated here.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 10:53 AM

"I should add, that Al Gore showed extreme courage in fighting against the international and scientific establishment, which is filled with global warming deniers."

Olaf, I've got some Nigerian money I would like to put in your bank account to promote this "theory" about man made global warming. Please send me your information as soon as the arctic melts---which should be any day now.

Also, if you can prove that fire does not melt steel, I have been authorized to double the deposit.

Rovin,

Please see comments about sarcasm in previous posts.

Yes, Olaf, you should use the "sarcasm" tag.

Attempting to justify Al Gore's ascension to Laureatedom, the newsreader on the BBC this morning said the following (nearly verbatim) about Al Gore: "He has been Messiah-like in his productivity."

Setting aside the repulsiveness of referring to anyone as "Messiah-like," was Jesus particularly renowned for His productivity?

One of the newsreader's interviewees also referred to Al Gore as "The Great Communicator."

What some folks have traded Jesus and Reagan for is a dang shame.

Tom Shipley,

Obviously-

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 10:53 AM

"I should add, that Al Gore showed extreme courage in fighting against the international and scientific establishment, which is filled with global warming deniers."

So you're saying that there is no broad consensus among the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is real?

Glad we cleared that up. Hopefully, we can now put that meme to rest.

You know Olaf, the fact that so many mistake your sarcasm is forgivable given the other posts on this thread which echo yours, but which are not sarcastic.

Mother Teresa ... Albert Schweitzer ... Al Gore?

Riiiigggghhhhtttt

On deck: Michael Moore and the 9-11 Truthers.

Bank on it.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 11:03 AM

"rvastar,

I think it does sum it up, but I see that using sarcasm is not appreciated here."

Alas, I too failed to grasp your sarcasm. In my defense, there are those who post here who sincerely echo similar sentiments.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 11:06 AM

Rovin,

Please see comments about sarcasm in previous posts.

OLAF.....SORRY.....CONSIDER IT A SARC ON SARC!

Kinda like taking AlGore seriously.

The problem with the Nobel Prizes and all foundations set up for the original founder's priciples and beliefs is that the Peter Principle sets in after several generations and the founding principles are hi-jacked. To prevent this a founding list of requirements and rules so long and detailed and prescient as to be untenable would have to be spelled out.
Changing the subject why is it that every time I see a picture of Vice President Gore I think lupus? Maybe his make-up artist needs to lay off the cheek rouge.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 11:03 AM

"Perhaps the greatest part of Gore's prize is watching the Haters sit around assuring each other that he doesn't deserve it.

Whether or not GW is man-made or not, we still have to deal with it and it's still going to be a problem. It would behoove people here to look for solutions instead of casting aspersions."

The problem is that Al Gore and his disciples have already determined that the question regarding the proximate cause of global warming has been answered. They continue to promulgate the falsehood that the scientific community - with the exception of a few naysayers - is in agreement that GW is 100% anthropogenic in nature.

If global warming is not caused by human activity, then yes, we still have to deal with its effects. But if that's the case, then Kyote and similar approaches are extremely bad policy, and will have accomplished nothing toward mitigating the effects of global warming.

The ultimate issue isn't that the question has been put to rest, it's that so many are pretending that is has.

"On deck: Michael Moore and the 9-11 Truthers."

Come to think of it, maybe those two towers actually collapsed because of the climate change in New York? Is the race to claim the Arctic for the purpose of another Oklahoma land grab after the ice melts? Will "Redacted" be the next Nobel and Oscar prize for another fictional fantasy? Will Hillary chose Brian De Palma for her V.P.? Who gets to sit next to Carter at the next convention? Stay tuned-----looney toon productions coming to a theater near you.

My apologies, Olaf. I should have recognized the sarcasm.

But honestly, your posts are actually no less trite than the other defenses of the Goracle that have been posted in this thread.

Kind of a "Highway Hypnosis" thing...catch my drift?

Ed: This is Good post!

Beyond using this prize to make another anti-American point, the European left faces a far greater threat than global warming or Bush's foreign policy.

At current birth rates, there won't be any Europeans around in 50 years to figure out if Al Gore was right about global warming.

Tom Shipley,

The press release snippet you posted gives a bit of their rationale for the award. In short, there are indications that there may be some changes that might lead to violence.

However, I ask again, which of the three items as outlined in Nobel's will does this fall under? And why do *you*, not the award committee, believe that it falls under that condition.

No malice intended; I am hoping others will discuss which of these conditions Al Gore has met and why they believe that. I can read for myself why the Committee thought he deserved the award. I want to know why people here do, and "because the Committee said so" is not a valid answer.

Cycloptichorn,

"...look for solutions instead of casting aspersions."

That is the root of hard science. Raise doubts. Cast aspersions. Confront the popular idea. That is the scientific methodology that works.

Acceptance of a line of scientific pronouncements because they are popular is not science. Phrenology was once a very popular science. Eugenics was once a popular science.

Yes, we are in a period of global warming. There is science to support a good part of that warming may be because of human interaction. There is also good bit of evidence that we have had global warming long before we invented the internal combustion engine. We have also had periods of global cooling. We have had enormous climate changes for millenia. There is an ongoing shift in the earth's magnetism and internal electron flow, and evidence that we have had several polar changes in the earth's magnetism. Do these coincide with global climate change? No publiushed peer reviewed study has been yet released on this but thered are scientists who are looking closely to see if there is indeed a correlation. If we choose to accept the IPGW declaration on global warming as the ultimate answer, how can we hiope to look deeper and try to explain that global climate changes long prior to the internal combustion engine have occured many many times in our history?

If global warming is a cyclical event, over a period of time, with rises and falls, somehow attached tro chages in the earth's magnetic field, or because of plate tectonics, or any other reason, do we deal with such rationally, or do we all go out and buy carbon credits?

In the meantime, common sense dictates that we lower our levels of pollution, cut by large numbers our output of harmful gases. No real harm in doing that, none at all.

But in doing so, we ignore all the other indicators of climate change, from Earth's historical record, so we can feel all warm and fuzzy that we bought our carbon credits and only have three cars in the driveway instead of one for each kid, what have we accomplished for the longer range good?

Any scientist worth his/her salt who does not raise doubts even about their own theories and discoveries is no scientist. Any citizen of the earth who does not raise questions about any scientific theory is a willing victim.

Offering the Nobel Peace Prize for a theory doesn't cut it. There are several categories of regular Nobel Prizes that address advancements in science. Gore and the IPGW did not meet the criteria for those. This year's prize is a purely political statement.

While a lot of us don't believe that anything we do will have an effect on Global Warming (if indeed this is happening) we do believe that it is okay to be less wasteful and more conserving of the gifts which this earth provides us. We just think that all conserving ought to be done willingly and voluntarily and that none of us are more equal than others. (At least that's what I believe)

Tom Shipley wrote:

Perhaps the greatest part of Gore's prize is watching the Haters sit around assuring each other that he doesn't deserve it.

It's interesting you say that, because for me the greatest part of this story is watching liberals try to justify this award as legitimate honor for promoting world peace in the same league as Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer.

Simply put, the Nobel Peace Prize should be renamed as the Nobel Liberal Cause Prize given to the liberal who actively promotes liberal causes.

And I still want to see Brett Favre get the award next year. My goodness, he'll soon break George Blanda's interception record. That's more giving than Mother Teresa ever did!

Mrs. Shipley's husband said:

"Bush's main thesis was that the war in Iraq was necessary because of the "imminent" threat Iraq's WMD stockpiles and nuclear program posed to the US. That main thesis was proven undeniably false. Without that threat, the invasion would not have happened."

That may have been the "main" thesis, but the resolution also had some 15 other "theses" to go along with it that weren't related to WMDs.

And don't give all the credit for the WMD thesis to Bush, as nearly all of his opponents in the Democrat Party thought the same thing about the WMDs. They all claimed back in 1998 that Iraq had such weapons and was an imminent threat, and when Mrs. Bill Clinton voted in 2002 for Bush's resolution, she claimed at the time that she was getting the intelligence info she based her decision on not just from Bush's people, but from the intel people in her husband's Administration. Were they all lying about those WMDs too?

PS, docjim505: you should ask Captain Ed if you can fill in while the "Day by Day" comic is on hiatus. Your rendition of "Mr. and Mrs. Shipley" would be a good substitute.

coldwarrior,

Not a bad post, but a serious error:

"That is the root of hard science. Raise doubts. Cast aspersions. "

You are incorrect on that last part. Aspersions seek to attack the character of someone who is promoting a claim or theory. They aren't attacks against the science at all, but against Gore himself. Aspersions are unbecoming in the extreme and non-productive.

I agree that carbon credits are ridiculous.

I was lucky enough to see the Dalai Lama two years ago during his US tour. He said something which has always stuck with me:

"People ask me a lot about what the best way to 'change the world' is. I always tell them the same thing: you may not be able to change the world, but you can change yourself."

And so that is what I and many others have attempted to do: change ourselves.

You state,

"In the meantime, common sense dictates that we lower our levels of pollution, cut by large numbers our output of harmful gases. No real harm in doing that, none at all."

Many here would disagree with you on this position, though I agree heartily. Pollution is a huge problem absent of any GW considerations.

Rovin, Kevin, rvastar,

No apologies necessary. Since I don't post much here, you guys wouldn't have any clue about my purpose or political leanings. It's my fault for not being clear.

Olaf, your wit was so dry that we needed a sarcasm tag.

Packerbronco,

Your last post attributed something to Tom Shipley that in fact was written by me. Please be careful to be accurate in your attributions.

I would advance the theory that you don't see Conservatives winning this prize very often due to the fact that Conservatives don't do much of anything in the realm of peace, and aren't interested in it; you guys are more into blowing stuff up.

KevinMc:

One aspect of respect for different opinions is precise use of language. Who, exactly, are the "sides" here? Do all liberals believe that Al Gore's campaign has more to do with peace than defusing nuclear proliferation in North Korea? Are the many liberal scientists who also say that Mr. Gore's movie is full of alarmism and hyperbole also "swift boating"?

Do you believe, like some other scientists, that the alarmism and hyperbole presented by Mr. Gore are justified in order to create momentum leading to action? Many people who really believe that global warming is our biggest threat would support this idea. It is one which could be discussed respectfully.

One aspect of the deterioration in political discourse is inaccurate, broad characterization of the views of your opposition. You state here that Graeme Frost has been "slimed". This is an inflammatory word. It is clever for the Democrats to deliver messages through children so that any criticism of the child's message can be characterized as an attack on a child.

The vast majority of conservative challenges to the Graeme Frost advertisement have focused on the political operatives manipulating the message he gave and on the particulars of means testing for the SCHIP program. It is true that some conservative bloggers have criticized Graeme Frost's parents for exploiting him. It is true that many have challenged the idea that they could not have afforded insurance for their family before the accident. Sometimes, their information was wrong, but the information was later corrected in the major blogs. I am not aware of any conservative commentator with a substantial following who has attacked the boy rather than the message prepared for him to deliver. Can you quote one for us?

You may get a few nut case threats in the comment threads in blogs either on the right or the left. But unless you can trace the threats to someone who has some respect as a shaper of political opinion, it is inaccurate to write as if death threats against children are a typical feature of "political discourse" today.

I hope the FBI tracks down anyone who has made a death threat against Graeme Frost. One possibility is that a threat or threats were made by a liberal on commenting on a conservative blog in order to make conservatives look bad. You could increase your credibility as an even-handed observer of political discourse by also mentioning threats from the left against a child. You are probably aware of the (confirmed) multiple threats against Jeff Goldstein's toddler by an assistant professor of psychology.

"I would advance the theory that you don't see Conservatives winning this prize very often due to the fact that Conservatives don't do much of anything in the realm of peace, and aren't interested in it; you guys are more into blowing stuff up."

Cycloptichorn, I'm not sure Bin Laden would like you calling him a conservative.

That's more giving than Mother Teresa ever did!

Yeah, I think she only had 208 career interceptions.

I'm a AGW skeptic because the proof is unconvincing. Even if Gore and the Warmies are right, there is nothing we can do about it. I'm not paid by the oil companies and I agree it is getting warmer.

Earth's climate changes. During the ice age 18,000 years ago, average temperature was 10°C; During the Holocene climate optimum 6,000 years ago, it was 18°C. During the Medieval warm period, it was 16°C and during the Little Ice Age, it was 13.5°. Man survived all of these. Polar bears did not drown.

If greenhouse effect is causing global warming, why are we focusing totally on carbon dioxide? CO2 only 3.6% of the total greenhouse gasses while water vapor is 95%. Although carbon dioxide is 88% efficient as a greenhouse gas, H2O is 68% efficient and is far more abundant.

Of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 57% comes from the ocean, 38% from respiration, 1% from deforestation and only 4% from fossil fuels. The only significant way we could limit CO2 would be to have all mammals hold their breath for a year! If we eliminated all fossil fuels, we could only cut greenhouse gas by 1.44% not keeping up with the birth rate.

Why do the AGW advocates refuse to debate the issue?

Arch

Rovin,

Of course he would. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist with a Conservative viewpoint.

Cycloptichorn,

You said: "I would advance the theory that you don't see Conservatives winning this prize very often due to the fact that Conservatives don't do much of anything in the realm of peace, and aren't interested in it; you guys are more into blowing stuff up."

Now who is casting aspersions?

I definitely disagree with you. We all want peace; in some cases the methods to achieve that peace are different. Nothing more.

For example, was it possible to achieve peace and maintain Europe as separate nation-states without war in the 1940s? Should we have allowed Germany to continue what they were doing and not fight them? That technically would have been peace.

And what exactly is your definition of peace? We can achieve peace tomorrow with Islamists by becoming Muslim and allowing them to rule the world. Is that the kind of peace you mean, because I don't think so.

As for your reply to coldwarrior, "Many here would disagree with you on this position, though I agree heartily. Pollution is a huge problem absent of any GW considerations."

Again, I would disagree. I personally do not believe in AGW, but I do believe that less pollution is good, that recycling is good, that we should respect the environment. I think what you will find is that many here would agree with those statements. Many here also want to see that those who insist on asking us to make changes, make those changes as well. Al Gore, for example (there are plenty of other names I could use here), should not use private jets; he should fly commercial. He should make sure that the only lights on in his house are the ones in the room where he is. He should have a compost pile and recycle. His family should drive one car and it should be a hybrid. Then, he can ask us to do the same. Lead by example and not by diktat. But please, do not tell us we have to make sacrifices but that he does not.

"due to the fact that Conservatives don't do much of anything in the realm of peace, and aren't interested in it; you guys are more into blowing stuff up."

Speaking as someone who spent 9 months in the Middle East during the First Gulf War, I agree with you.

I mean, there's nothing I like more than waking up in a sandbox, showering weekly, drinking chlorinated water, walking fifty yards to get to the head, breathing oil droplets all day, enduring anthrax vaccinations, eating possibly the worst food ever created and wondering if you will ever see your family again.

And then, there's the possibility of being killed by one of Saddam's scuds! What a rush!

Finally, it's great enduring all of that and then being unable to have a beer at the end of the day, because it's illegal.

Seriously, from what comic book did you get this notion that conservatives dislike "peace"?

Conservatives recognize that you cannot have peace without preparing for and sometimes engaging in war.

Conservatives love peace more than liberals do, because conservatives are willing to do what is necessary to guarantee long-term peace.

Liberals prefer half-assed, half-baked appeasement schemes that breed conflict because they ignore threats until it's too late to prevent war.

And that's why liberals are too dangerously irresponsible to consider for elected office. Which is why I am very glad Al Gore was unable to steal the 2000 election.

Just for the record: Former VP Al Gore does NOT have an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" - the winners for that film were director Davis Guggenheim and Melissa Etheridge (for her song "I Need to Wake Up").

News Flash-

The current global warming on Earth can be traced to the warming on Mars. This statement is no more silly than the crap that the Goremeister is peddling. In fact, a top Russian scientist stated earlier this year that "the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row", and that " the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun". Read the article for yourself, but notice that it was written by your favorite global warming alarmist, National Geographic News.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

No Donkey,

Yeah, you Conservatives love the idea of peace - peace through maximum and overwhelming firepower.

Monique,

I agree with you that pollution is a problem and that respecting the environment makes sense. The flip side to this is that it cuts heavily into business profits in order to do so; many here will be displeased with this and will fight to keep such things from happening.

Cyclo,

"Yeah, you Conservatives love the idea of peace - peace through maximum and overwhelming firepower."

Well then, you liberals love the idea of war.

War due to spineless ignorance, post-modern theories on moral equivalence and treason (e.g. House Democrats intentionally antagonizing Turkey for the purpose of sabotaging Middle East relations, in order to follow their electoral strategy).

Cycloptichorn,

I noticed that you had no comment about my "solution" to achieving peace with the Islamists. I'd like to read your thoughts on that.

Monique,

I didn't think it was a serious proposal, so I didn't respond to it.

I have read every comment, enjoyed the give and take, credited the honesty of opinions, mentally applauded some of the very thoughtful posts and ripostes (and envied many) and hope that some of these thoughts are read by people who can change them into actions. We who believe in the honesty of the Swift boaters and their actions should set up a yearly Swift boat award...given to the person who has done the most to debunk popular un truths. (I notice that even snopes.com seems to be taking a leftward slant with their versions of the truth,IMO)

Tom Shipley: Bush's main thesis was that the war in Iraq was necessary because of the "imminent" threat Iraq's WMD stockpiles and nuclear program posed to the US. That main thesis was proven undeniably false. Without that threat, the invasion would not have happened.

Can you provide a link where the president used the word "imminent"? I seem to recall him saying that Saddam was a "gathering" threat that he didn't want to allow to fester until he became an "imminent" threat.

Del Dolemonte: PS, docjim505: you should ask Captain Ed if you can fill in while the "Day by Day" comic is on hiatus. Your rendition of "Mr. and Mrs. Shipley" would be a good substitute.

Thanks very much, but you weren't supposed to be amused. After all, we conservatives aren't funny (ask Tom Shipley).

/sarcasm

Teresa: The scientific ignorance displayed in this comment section is staggering.

Oh?

1. Many of us question why Algore won the Peace Prize. This isn't a question about the science (or lack thereof) behind his loopy theory, but rather about the sense - if not sanity - of the Nobel Committee.

2. IIRC, Algore flunked out of divinity school. He is not a scientist of any description. As I AM a scientist, I personally find it a little hard to be lectured on a technical subject by a man whose scientific education presumably ended with freshman chemistry and physics.

3. If the scientific evidence for AGW is so overwhelming, then libs like Algore wouldn't have to rely on the bogus idea of "consensus" to try to trick people into believing them. For that matter, his movie wouldn't have nine such obvious flaws that even a judge - also not a scientist - could spot them.

4. Teresa: Doesn't it ever strike you as curious that all the flakes they bring out to say that global warming is false are getting funding from oil and gas companies?

Doesn't it ever strike YOU as odd that all the flakes they bring out to say that global warming is real are politically liberal?

Doesn't it also strike you as odd that Algore relies on scare tactics to get people to believe him?

A NOTE ABOUT "CONSENSUS":

It's been said and written many times before, but it's worth repeating: science does not rely on "consensus". It does not rely on majority rule. It is not a popularity contest. It relies on data and repeatable, verifiable observations and experimentation.

AGW as a theory is sorely lacking here. Several flaws with AGW are obviously apparent:

1. Because temperature monitoring on the surface of the earth has not been conducted in a very rational manner (stations are not sited to give uniform coverage; stations are not sited to free them from interference from local conditions; stations are not always maintained properly; the number of stations has not been constant), it is difficult to say with anything like absolute certainty what the temperature of the earth actually is. One can certainly not say what it is with such precision as to demonstrate that a small fluctuation is statistically significant.

2. The timespan of temperature monitoring is insignificant compared to the age of the earth, and therefore it is difficult (if not impossible)to determine whether any observed fluctuations in the average temperature are "natural" or due to man's influence.

3. We know through geological evidence that the earth has been much hotter than it is now... and at other times much cooler. If the earth's temperature has changed so much in the past, it is not unreasonable to assume that it will change in the future without any influence from human activity.

4. The computer simulations that predict global warming have not demonstrated ANY validity, i.e. they cannot match KNOWN climate conditions when fed historical data. In short, call me back when you can predict the weather accurately a month from Tuesday; I'll start to believe the computer models then.

5. Algore's co-recipient, the UN panel, admitted in its own report that the effects on global warming of such things as cloud cover are not well understood. They could be quite significant.

6. CO2 has been made the culprit for global warming. As arch points out, water vapor is ALSO a "greenhouse gas". I also seem to recall that geological evidence shows CO2 to be a LAGGING indicator of temperature, i.e. the CO2 levels have gone up AFTER temperatures have gone up.

These criticisms are off the top of my head; I'm sure an expert could come up with far more. But they are valid questions / criticisms and, until somebody can provide verifiable data to convince me that Algore and his idiot followers have the right answers to them (arm-waving and calling me a "denier" don't count), I will give AGW the same credence I give to the Tooth Fairy. Less, actually: the Tooth Fairy doesn't threaten to harm our economy and way of life.

Tom,

If there is so much evidence for AGW, why don't you present it?

Arctic melting? Nope - that's due to the warm phase of the PDO, this year's melting was due to a high pressure ridge that suppressed clouds all year.

Antarctic melting? Nope - Antartica is getting colder and it's ice cap is growing.

Greenland melting? Nope - Greenland is getting colder and it's ice cap is growing.

Temperatures getting warmer? Nope - That's almost totally due to three things, the sun getting stronger, Urban Heat Island, and microsite contamination of sensors.

The only "evidence" for AGW consists of models. Models that fail when given historic data and asked to predict historic climates.

Tom,

I'm guessing you are only claiming to have read the opinion. The judge stated that while the film may be aired, it has to be accompanied with announcements that the film is also one sided political propaganda.

As to the other points. So what, the 11 marked out by the judge were the core of the film.

There is not, and never has been a consensus regarding the predictions of the IPCC. Scientists are all over the map in their opinions of AGW, but the vast majority of them fall into the camp that believes it is a minor climate driver, and nothing to worry about.

CEI gets 0.1% of it's funding from Exxon, and the AGW fanatics start screaming that they are bought and paid for.

On the other hand the high priests of AGW get almost all of their funding from govt agencies that stand to gain big time from the new taxes and power that the AGW alarmists are trying to bring to govt, and that is somehow beyond question.

The claim that us skeptics are bought and paid for by big oil has been disproven so many times that only the willfully ignorant still believe it.

Peanut Carter, Yasser Arafat, Rigoberta Menchu, Kofi Annan, Al Gore.

All are known Nobel Prize frauds wearing an equivalent of Marion Jones' gold medals. At least Jones conscience became more than she could bear so she finally 'fessed up to her ill gotten gains. Arafat is doing the dirt nap so that's all folks for him. Annan is busy spending the oil for food loot. Carter and Gore still have doomsday merchandise to sell so no behavioral changes expected for both hucksters.

I'd comment more on phony Al Gore but all the iced tea I drank earlier prohibits further testimony at this time.

Cycloptichorn,

Of course it's not a serious proposal. But it would achieve peace. My point is that peace can be achieved one of three ways. First, the Roman way by strength of arms and economic might. Second, by giving in to whatever those who threaten violence demand to avoid that violence. Third, by having all parties agree to a live and let live policy. Option three is not going to happen. Therefore, you are left with only two viable options to achieve peace. Which do you prefer?

You say conservatives only want war. Well, I'll take war any day over forcible conversion. Would you or would you not agree with that statement?

The idea that we have any idea what the true temperature of the entire planet is so laughable, that only a true believer would put any stock in it.

1) Of the entirety of the earth's surface, only the US, southern Canada, and Europe come close to being adequately monitored. The oceans, which cover 70% of the world's surface is almost totally unmonitored.

2) Even though the monitoring system in the US is regarded as the highest quality in the world, an ongoing survey of US stations has found that only about 1 station in 10 lives up to NOAA's minimum standards. That is, class 1 or 2 on a 5 point scale. Over half of the stations rated in at class 5, which as defined by NOAA itself means that because of microsite contamination issues the errors in the station could exceed 10C. (www.surfacestations.org) I'm not sure if the name is plural or not.

3) The vast majority of contamination issues result in the station reading hotter than it should. Errors that result in colder readings are few and far between.

4) Scientists advocating AGW have been time and time again been caught engaging in false and or deceptive practices. Everything from Mann's thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" to Jones's refusal to archive the data and source code that he uses to create his "studies".

------------------

Here's another fact. Since 1998, the earth's temperature, as measured by the satellites has fallen slowly but steadily. That's 9 years during which CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures haven't. If CO2 were the all powerfull climate drivers that the high priests keep telling us it is, how could that happen?

Our AGW acolytes really need to get their stories straight.

Theresa tells us that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW.
Now Olaf tells us that the scientific establishment is filled with AGW deniers.

Which is it, it can't be both.

Monique,

Forcible conversion IS war, but it's also something that isn't going to happen, so I'm as worried about that as I am the impeding alien invasion or the next asteroid impact. You might want to take the Hyperbole knob and dial it down a little.

The 'live and let live' policy is the best one. It's also got a tremendous track record of success. There's every evidence that people desire freedom and in the long run will take actions to secure the freedom FOR THEMSELVES. Actions taken to speed this process along have rarely found success.

We have the technology and strength of arms to defend ourselves against those who don't want to 'live and let live.' I suggest that we focus on doing this, instead of attempting to achieve peace by shooting anyone who doesn't agree to choose peace.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

you [conservatives] are more into blowing stuff up.

You betcha Cy, things like the friggin' Berlin Wall!

There are some very learned skeptics in the academic world including the father of climatology science, Professor Reid Bryson. This man ,who is the preeminent expert on climate, dismisses the CO2 role in warming in favor of