October 12, 2007

The Nobel For Alarmism And Hyperbole Goes To ...

Former Vice President Al Gore how has a Nobel Peace Prize to go along with his Oscar for his efforts to advance the cause of global warming by misstating data and frankly lying about its effects. At least that's the conclusion of a British court that had to rule on whether schools in the UK could use Gore's documentary as a teaching tool:

The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."

Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.

Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.

Judge Michael Burton essentially endorsed the film for use, but only with the caveat that An Inconvenient Truth was not a science film, but a political film. In fact, it's propaganda. Scientists, even those who support the anthropomorphic climate change theory, have pointed out the same "nine errors" and more ever since the film's release. Gore's supporters shrug this off, apparently comfortable with flat-out untruths in pursuit of their political goals.

For a group which hands out prestigious awards in scientific fields, one might think that the Nobel Committee might want to maintain its credibility on real science. It 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.

Who else could have won the Nobel prize, if the committee wanted to promote peace and freedom rather than political allies? Well, perhaps they may have considered the hundreds, if ot thousands of monks in Burma who just sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of non-violent regime change. 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.

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. Instead, they chose to honor a hysteric with a polemic on meteorology. And why? 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?

UPDATE: My good friend Scott Johnson puts the decline of the Nobel Peace Prize in perspective. (via Hugh Hewitt)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/14669

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Nobel For Alarmism And Hyperbole Goes To ...:

» Will Nobel Prize will compel Al to run from Morning Coffee
 Will the Nobel Prize compel Al to throw his hat into the Presidential ring?  Some think it will From MSNBC  Grass-roots Gore loyalists have been buzzing for weeks about the Nobel Prize announcement scheduled for Oct. 12 in Oslo, Norway. Gore was ... [Read More]

» Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize from Stop The ACLU
Joining the ranks of Arafat, Carter, and Mohammed ElBaradei…. All hail the newest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore! And what better to share the prize with than the U.N.??? Macker wonders how many carbon credits this will cost. Powerline give... [Read More]

» Gore + Bore + President? from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
While Hillary is trying to become America’s first Queen, the former wayward kid of the White House Clan is stealing all the headlines. “Vice President Al Gore was named joint winner of Nobel Peace Prize Friday for his environmental activism... [Read More]

» And the award for the biggest joke is.... from Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
Wait, you mean this isn't a joke? Gore, U.N. panel win Peace Prize Former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo today for their campaigns against [Read More]

» A Response to the Critics Acid Raining on Gore's Parade from Buck Naked Politics
Posted by Damozel | photo by Will Palmer A RESPONSE. Earlier today, my colleague D Cupples pointed out that now Gore has that Nobel Peace Prize, critics are acid raining on his parade. In her earlier piece, D Cupples quoted from---among others--- Ed Mo... [Read More]

Comments (205)

Posted by Clink | October 12, 2007 8:08 AM

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

Posted by Monkei | October 12, 2007 8:10 AM

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,

Posted by K | October 12, 2007 8:11 AM

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.

Posted by M. Murcek | October 12, 2007 8:15 AM

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.

Posted by the friendly grizzly | October 12, 2007 8:16 AM

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

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 8:16 AM

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.

Posted by Mike | October 12, 2007 8:18 AM

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

Posted by GalleyWest | October 12, 2007 8:19 AM

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

GalleyWest

Posted by KevinMc | October 12, 2007 8:23 AM

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!

Posted by SouthernRoots | October 12, 2007 8:25 AM

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

The see how much "peace" breaks out.

Posted by Rose | October 12, 2007 8:28 AM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 8:29 AM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 8:31 AM

Gore wins???

I demand a recount.

Posted by Mike | October 12, 2007 8:32 AM

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.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 8:33 AM

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.

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.

Posted by Mike | October 12, 2007 8:38 AM

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?

Posted by Rovin | October 12, 2007 8:44 AM

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.


Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 8:44 AM

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.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 12, 2007 8:54 AM

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.

Posted by Will Roberts | October 12, 2007 8:57 AM

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

Posted by Will Roberts | October 12, 2007 9:02 AM

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

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

and scroll down.

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 9:07 AM

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.

Posted by Nate | October 12, 2007 9:09 AM

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.

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.

Posted by always right | October 12, 2007 9:15 AM

Rose,

You assumed that man has a soul to lose.

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

Posted by Dave RYwall | October 12, 2007 9:17 AM

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.

Posted by patrick neid | October 12, 2007 9:19 AM

Goebbels would be proud.......

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 12, 2007 9:20 AM

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.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 12, 2007 9:26 AM

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?

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 9:28 AM

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.

Posted by brainy435 [TypeKey Profile Page] | October 12, 2007 9:30 AM

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

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 12, 2007 9:34 AM

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.

Posted by T.G. Scott | October 12, 2007 9:35 AM

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.

Posted by Master Shake | October 12, 2007 9:36 AM

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.

Posted by daveinboca | October 12, 2007 9:39 AM

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.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 9:44 AM

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?

Posted by Foston | October 12, 2007 9:44 AM

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

Posted by Eric Forhan | October 12, 2007 9:45 AM

|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.

Posted by foston | October 12, 2007 9:48 AM

>>>>>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

Posted by Teresa | October 12, 2007 9:54 AM

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.

Posted by Teresa | October 12, 2007 9:56 AM

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.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 12, 2007 9:58 AM

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.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 9:59 AM

but a conservative group of actors

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

Posted by TomB | October 12, 2007 10:03 AM

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.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 12, 2007 10:04 AM

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.

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 10:04 AM

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.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 10:07 AM

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.

Posted by essucht | October 12, 2007 10:09 AM

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.

Posted by TomB | October 12, 2007 10:09 AM

We have a new Nobel Price category:

The Nobel Greenpeace Price!!!

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 10:11 AM

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.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 12, 2007 10:12 AM

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.

Posted by TomB | October 12, 2007 10:13 AM

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

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 10:19 AM

YAAAWWWWWNNNNN

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

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 10:21 AM

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.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 12, 2007 10:30 AM

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.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 10:35 AM

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 Rovin | October 12, 2007 10:39 AM

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?)

Posted by eaglewings | October 12, 2007 10:40 AM

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

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 10:43 AM

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.

Posted by TomB | October 12, 2007 10:47 AM

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.

Posted by rbj | October 12, 2007 10:48 AM

Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Fiction Prize.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 10:49 AM

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.

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.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 12, 2007 10:55 AM

"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.

Posted by TomB | October 12, 2007 10:56 AM

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

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 10:57 AM

TomB

Should I use a "sarcasm" tag?

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 10:58 AM

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.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 11:00 AM

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?

Posted by rvastar | October 12, 2007 11:01 AM

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?

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.

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.

Posted by Rovin | October 12, 2007 11:05 AM

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.

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

Rovin,

Please see comments about sarcasm in previous posts.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 11:07 AM

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

Posted by Troll Feeder | October 12, 2007 11:09 AM

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.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 11:09 AM

Tom Shipley,

Obviously-

Posted by Kevin | October 12, 2007 11:10 AM

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.

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 11:11 AM

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 Kevin | October 12, 2007 11:12 AM

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 Rovin | October 12, 2007 11:13 AM

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.

Posted by RD | October 12, 2007 11:14 AM

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 Kevin | October 12, 2007 11:19 AM

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.

Posted by Rovin | October 12, 2007 11:19 AM

"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.

Posted by rvastar | October 12, 2007 11:21 AM

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?

Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | October 12, 2007 11:22 AM


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.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 11:25 AM

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.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 11:25 AM

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.

Posted by RD | October 12, 2007 11:32 AM

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)

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 11:33 AM

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!

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 12, 2007 11:34 AM

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.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 11:37 AM

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.

Posted by Olaf Anderson | October 12, 2007 11:39 AM

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.

Posted by Al in St. Lou | October 12, 2007 11:44 AM

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

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 11:45 AM

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.

Posted by KarenT | October 12, 2007 11:45 AM

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.

Posted by Rovin | October 12, 2007 11:52 AM

"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.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 12, 2007 11:52 AM

That's more giving than Mother Teresa ever did!

Yeah, I think she only had 208 career interceptions.

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 11:54 AM

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

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Rovin,

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

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 12:02 PM

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.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 12, 2007 12:17 PM

"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.

Posted by MrBuddwing | October 12, 2007 12:20 PM


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").

Posted by Ron | October 12, 2007 12:22 PM

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

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 12:31 PM

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.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 12, 2007 12:39 PM

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).

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM

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.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 12:49 PM

Monique,

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

Posted by RD | October 12, 2007 12:50 PM

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)

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 12:59 PM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:00 PM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:03 PM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:04 PM

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.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:07 PM

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.

Posted by viking01 | October 12, 2007 1:14 PM

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.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 1:17 PM

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?

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:18 PM

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?

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:21 PM

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.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 1:26 PM

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.

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 1:32 PM

Cycloptichorn wrote:

you [conservatives] are more into blowing stuff up.

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

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 1:35 PM

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 H2O.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Both the BBC and the CBC have produced multipart documentaries that can be seen on Youtube. Neither of these networks are pawns of the neo-conservatives, the Bush administration or the energy industry.

A very interesting video made by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist concludes that we cannot prevent global warming, only delay it by several years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

On the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum, The Guy From Boston reaches the same conclusion. I would not recommend any liberals use this link for fear of offending their sense of political correctness. If you watch, be prepared for mature language and refrain from drinking any liquids unless you enjoy explosively discharging it from both nostrils.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JoaS7CA03s

Arch

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 1:35 PM

Packer,

At least you correctly quoted me that time.

You may note that we did not in fact 'blow up' the Berlin wall. The people of Germany dismantled the wall and reunified their country. This actually speaks quite well to the point I made in my last post, thanks.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:39 PM

Cycloptichorn gives us the classic liberal line.

Everyone one who disagrees with him is evil and stupid.

He doesn't bother trying to justify his bigoted opinions, after all, if you aren't a liberal all ready, your too stupid to understand his logic anyway.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 1:42 PM

Mark W,

I specifically disagree with your last post. Everyone who disagrees with me isn't evil and stupid. Now, YOU may be evil and stupid; but everyone who disagrees with me isn't.

If you would like to address something that I actually wrote, instead of furiously burning up strawmen of your own creation, I heartily invite you to do so. Though I suspect you won't have the guts to.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 1:43 PM

Cycloptichorn,

You may want to take your own advice. Last I checked, you decided that every conservative was a bloodthirsty berserker out to kill everyone they could find. Oh, right... just "blowing stuff up."

Funny thing about people who don't "agree to choose peace." They usually like to shoot you. So yeah, if someone is shooting at me, I'm gonna shoot back.

I'm sorry to say that I have yet to actually get a straight answer out of you on anything I have asked. It's unfortunate, because I love a good debate on substantive issues. So, on the actual topic of Ed's post: giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize, why don't you prove me wrong and answer this. Based on the criteria listed in Nobel's will as outlined in my post to Tom Shipley, under which of the three criteria does the awarding of the prize to Al Gore fall and why... not why according to the Committee. Why according to you.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:45 PM

The latest IPCC report admits that of the 12 factors that are used to make their predictions, 9 are know with little to only moderate confidence.

Posted by RD | October 12, 2007 1:49 PM

Mr. Unicorn...is this not hyperbole..."instead of attempting to achieve peace by shooting anyone who doesn't agree to choose peace"?

Posted by viking01 | October 12, 2007 1:49 PM

The Germans finally did themselves what Reagan asked Gorby to do. They tore down the wall. By various means. Some with sledgehammers others with controlled explosives. It depends on where the wall is and whether or not Soviet asbestos filler was used in the cost cutter concrete.

The fraud of communism / socialism finally collapsed under its own weight. In a lasting monument to those killed and oppressed in the name of cult leader Karl Marx there are many museums throughout Germany with sections of that wall on display.

In a few decades the cult leadership of Al Gore will finally go the way of Piltdown Man the Year 2k Bug, Michael Moore films and other hoaxes peddled for fools' gold.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 1:50 PM

Cycloptichorn, your previous statements give the lie to that claim.

When it comes to hatred, nobody beats your average liberal. As you so aptly demonstrate.

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 1:55 PM

Viking:

There's also a large chunk of the Berlin Wall in a glass case in the Pentagon. That's appropriate.

Arch

Posted by SoldiersMom | October 12, 2007 1:55 PM

CE, Guess you didn't get the memo. It's no longer P.C. to call it "Global Warming". It's now called "Climate Change." They're predicting the coldest winter in years this winter. Could possibly refreeze all the glaciers or something. "Climate change" is their CYA on this issue.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 1:56 PM

Monique,

You may note that I said that Conservatives are MORE interested in blowing things up then in peace. There is plenty of evidence of this. This doesn't make every Conservative a 'bloodthirsty berserker.' This is more of that Hyperbole I was talking about.

As for your second paragraph, isn't it important to note that Iraq didn't 'shoot us' in any way? My guess is that you won't admit that this is true, as it is destructive to your case and builds on mine.

You haven't asked any questions that are worth substantive answers. There's no looming threat of 'conversion' from anyone; it's amazing to me that you could believe there is. You do realize, at any second we wished, we could Glass each and every country in the middle east. All of them. Simultaneously. We wouldn't lose a single soldier in the process. We are not under any threat of being taken over by anyone. You really ought to realize this instead of being afraid of shadows.

I think there's a valid argument to be made that fighting global warming - man-made or not - has the potential to save tremendous numbers of human lives. Large percentages of human populations live in areas which would have great trouble dealing with even slight rises in sea levels. We know that sea levels have risen in the past and are likely to again at some point. Science cannot accurately predict when they will again in the future; therefore the best plan is to try and mitigate some of the effects before they happen.

You are free to disagree all you wish with the awarding of the peace prize to Gore; just don't expect your disagreements to be remembered over time in any way. For a long time now, humanity has acted in extremely short-sighted fashion when it comes to managing our environment and the various wastes that our production facilities and everyday lives pump into it; an intelligent approach would be to manage this to the best of our ability, while balancing the need for industrial and technological expansion. I'm no 'return to the earth' Environmentalist; I'm not an AGW alarmist. I don't think the world is going to catastrophically shift any time soon. But I do believe it would be far more intelligent to start thinking about the problems before they are too late, and for his efforts in getting people around the world to actually think about the situation, instead of ignoring it, Gore deserves the prize.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 1:59 PM

Mark W,

You're confused; you see Pity as Hatred. I also think you're projecting more then a little bit here. The tone of each of your posts is quite insulting and combative. It's unbecoming and highly unserious.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 12, 2007 1:59 PM

Al Gore is so sure that global warming will destroy the planet that he charitably announce that he will donate his prize money to his own nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection. Of course, a good argument could be made that he's donating his money to his own nonprofit just to avoid taxes, but as any leftest will tell you, only someone like KKKarl would do something like that.

BTW, very few people deny that global warming exists. The evidence is all around us. Just like the four seasons, Ice ages, continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, ect. global warming is just another example that the environment is in constant change. This is a truth that most people recognize and accept. The only thing that is false is the belief that Humans are the masters of the universe and that we have the power to stop the natural processes that have continued for billions of years.

Mankind has long been under the illusion that we are somehow the dominant force on this planet and that we can bend the natural forces to our will. This is a false belief. A simple example is our instance that we can manage forest fires. After over a hundred years of trying to manage the forests and stop forest fires from destroying our homes, the fires continue, homes are lost, people are killed, and nothing we can do will ever change that. We could even cut down all the trees, but that would only result in large grasslands with is also affect by natural fires.

Another example is that for thousands of years, mankind has been attempting to control local weather patterns. We have tried to seed clouds to produce rain. We have burned fires, produced talisments, chanted rituals, sacrificed animals and people in an attempt to appease the gods, all to no avail. We have beamed microwaves into storms in an attempt to lessen them. We have even tried to dance our way to mastery over the weather, yet even after thousands of years of observation, we can't even reliably predict the weather for more than a few hours or days at a time, let alone control it.

If we can't even control a local phenomena like forest fires or thunderstorms, let alone predict them accurately, how can we ever think we can achieve mastery of the entire planet and control global climate? We can't, and any claim to the contrary is foolish. We are not Gods, people, no matter how much people like Al Gore wishes we were.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 2:05 PM

Well, considering in 1939 a member of the Swedish Parliament actually floated the name of the then-current German Chancellor for the award and was not laughed out of the chamber, and there have been a few frauds involving persons awarded the Peace Prize along the way [Noel-Baker and Menchu come to mind.], and the 2002 prize was the most blatantly clear political move against the United States since the inception of the prize, the best we can hope for is that next year the Committee looks at serious issues of real substance acknolwedging achievements of persons who placed themselves at great personal risk to produce those achievements [The Dali Lama comes to mind, but he's already rightfully been given one.] and that Al Gore does not parlay this prize into license to become the next President, or Secretary General of the UN.

Posted by viking01 | October 12, 2007 2:09 PM

Posted by Arch:

"There's also a large chunk of the Berlin Wall in a glass case in the Pentagon. That's appropriate."
----------

Indeed.

Much like the Bastille Prison key on display at Mt. Vernon as a gift from Lafayette to George Washington. Symbols of gained freedom for those now freed and memorials / tributes to those who have paid freedoms' costs.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 2:14 PM

There's a nice "chunk" of the Berlin Wall right outside the Southwest Entrance to CIA, three full sections, actually, and appropriately at the door used by those members of the former Directorate of Operations who spent a lot of time behind the wall to assist in its being dismantled by the citizens of a shattered DDR. It is a symbol of peace achieved, not given.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 2:26 PM

Cycloptichorn,

In my second paragraph, I never mentioned Iraq. It was a direct reference to your own earlier post about agreeing to choose peace and had nothing to do with Iraq. You are correct in your statement insofar as Iraq never fired a weapon onto US soil, nor as I assume you are alluding to, was responsible for 9/11. However, they certainly fired upon US and British planes in the no-fly zones. What I said stands, anytime someone "shoots at" me - and that includes killing people on US soil using airplanes, dirty bombs, chemical warfare, or biological warfare - I am going to fire back.

What's amazing is that you cannot distinguish between a hypothetical question and a tacit admission that I am "afraid of shadows." I have no fear that Islamists will even have the opportunity to attempt to force my conversion. Of course we can glass them, as you put it. We could probably wipe out the whole planet if we so chose. I don't see our fingers itching to press the button and unless we were directly invaded (and frankly even then) I know we wouldn't ever hit that button either.

Funny, how you seem to make a lot of assumptions about me and where I am coming from, or what you think my "arguments" are. Unlike you, I have taken the time to engage you as an individual, not as a liberal or conservative, to ask questions and attempt to see where you are coming from. Given that you still didn't bother to answer my question despite a lengthy post, I have to assume myself that you have no real interest in doing so. So much for a good debate today.

Posted by Crimso | October 12, 2007 2:28 PM

"Several flaws with AGW are obviously apparent"

The most obvious of which is that the hypothesis "Humans cause global warming" isn't testable, and must therefore be discarded (at least, scientifically). I am repeatedly amused (I passed through the dismay phase some time ago)at the amateurs who keep insisting that an untestable hypothesis is settled science. They may fool some committee set up by the Norwegian Parliament, but I personally know many scientists (myself included) who are highly doubtful about this subject (as well as many who aren't; but their existence was never in question).

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 2:41 PM

Monique,

What question, specifically, did you feel I didn't answer?

The only direct one I saw was about awarding Gore the nobel peace prize; I feel that I answered that in my previous post, the one ending 'for this Gore deserves the prize.'

I understand that you didn't say anything about Iraq, but you don't deny that what we are doing is essentially an unprovoked attack.

You state,

"What I said stands, anytime someone "shoots at" me - and that includes killing people on US soil using airplanes, dirty bombs, chemical warfare, or biological warfare - I am going to fire back."

Iraq did none of those things.

Hypothetical questions about choices between 'forcible conversion to Islaam' and warfare aren't generally considered worth answering.

If you restate your specific questions I'll answer them.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 2:43 PM

Crimso,

Is it really 'untestable' that human activity contributes to GW? That seems to be a pretty sweeping statement to me.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 2:53 PM

Cycloptichorn,

As you said,

""What I said stands, anytime someone "shoots at" me - and that includes killing people on US soil using airplanes, dirty bombs, chemical warfare, or biological warfare - I am going to fire back."

Iraq did none of those things."

I never said they did.

Posted by Crimso | October 12, 2007 2:53 PM

Describe the experiment you would conduct to test that hypothesis. Just because the test is theoretically possible (e.g., remove all anthropogenic CO2 and see what happens, then put it back and see what happens) doesn't make for a testable hypothesis. It must be testable from a practical standpoint as well. Predictions from models (or model systems) are not tests of the hypothesis as I stated it above.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 2:59 PM

Monique,

Then you must agree with me that the war in Iraq was a poor decision, and an offensive attack against a nation which had not attacked us.

In order to continue the conversation, I repeat: I'll attempt to answer any questions you care to list off.

Crimso,

You are Appealing to Extremes. It is possible to test individual components and then extrapolate those results to form hypothesis.

For example; do coal power plants significantly increase the CO2 in their region? And how much of that spreads out, and how quickly? Individual aspects can be tested.

This presents limitations; it is doubtful that we will PROVE that AGW is messing up our planet. We're talking about a system which is so much more complex then our normal ones, it's difficult to prove anything at all. We don't have an infinite amount of time or an objective viewpoint to study the cycles of the planet. All we can do is our best.

Earlier I stated: I'm not an AGW alarmist. I'm not a return-to-earther. I just think that we need to be acting under the assumption that our pollutants do indeed have an effect in some way. It's the prudent course of action.

Posted by Russ | October 12, 2007 3:31 PM

People like Cyclo don't want peace; they want to be spared war, as if the absence of war was the same as peace. It isn't. True peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but rather the presence of justice.

By Cyclo's logic, Neville Chaimberlain should have been awarded the Prize in 1938 for "avoiding" war with Hitler.

On the topic here, this has ended the committee's credibility, which was already in serious question. Gore has done NOTHING to contribute to peace. He has stopped no wars, borkered no deals, nor brought disparate sides to the bargaining table. He made a political movie about a scientific topic. Had he won for science, while still debatable, at least that would have been in the correct realm.

Giving this prize to Gore is like awarding the Vince Lombardi Trophy to the Indiana Pacers.

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 3:45 PM

Cycloptichorn: Forcible conversion IS war, but it's also something that isn't going to happen...

Oh? D'you think the islamofascists agree with you? Kind of a bummer for them to know that they'll never succeed in converting the entire world to the will of Allah. Perhaps they have a little more faith in their ultimate victory than you do. I'm pretty sure that they're going to keep trying.

I also wonder how many people in history confidently proclaimed that "it isn't going to happen" only to be dreadfully shocked when it DID happen.

... Iraq didn't 'shoot us' in any way...

Really? Because I could swear that any number of US (and British) pilots complained all through the '90s that the Iraqis were indeed shooting at them. Maybe I'm misinformed. Or maybe the pilots were lying. Or maybe somebody has to fire a projectile with a warhead of not less than 1000 lbs equivalent of TNT at a city with a population of greater than 100,000 within the bound of the continental US killing not less than 1,000 civilians AND issue an official statement taking full and sole responsibility for it to count in your book.

... it is doubtful that we will PROVE that AGW is messing up our planet.

The mind boggles...

So, you're applauding the award of the Peace Prize to Algore for championing a theory that you admit will likely remain unproven??? You're chosing to BELIEVE in something that is unproven??? More to the point, you are supporting people who advocate drastic action based on the very theory that you ADMIT is probably unprovable????

If you want to espouse the cause of less pollution and good stewardship of the environment, that's cool. But I really don't see how you can claim NOT to be a "AGW alarmist" interested only in a cleaner environment and NOT call out Algore and his loopy acolytes for the alarmists and frauds that they are. After all, they claim not only that AGW is provable, but that it is PROVEN.

We're talking about a system which is so much more complex then our normal ones, it's difficult to prove anything at all. We don't have an infinite amount of time or an objective viewpoint to study the cycles of the planet. All we can do is our best.

Um, Algore and his minions are espousing pretty radical changes in the way we live our lives and run our economy. They aren't advocating something cheap and simple like "get a flu shot to try to avoid the flu this winter" or "please don't throw your trash on the road". When you applaud that hustling phony, you are tacitly buying into what he says.

Make your choice: either you believe in Algore and AGW, or you don't. If you don't, then it seems to me that the award of the Peace Prize to him should be nothing less than an outrage.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 4:00 PM

Cycloptichorn,

The evidence that you believe you see, exists solely inside your head.

The fact that you willfully believe such hatefull things about an entire class of people with out a shred of evidence outside your bizare biases is evidence that you would much rather hate those who disagree with you than deal with the world as it is.

Such is the thinking of most liberals.

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 4:05 PM

The other planets in our solar system are also warming. How many SUV's do you suppose are on Mars at present?

Posted by MarkW | October 12, 2007 4:06 PM

Myself and others have present real world, factual, easily checked arguments against that CO2 is going to cause major problems.

Does anyone notice our various AGW protaganists actually trying to refute the evidence presented?

Of course not, they never do.

They just prattle on about the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is bought and paid for by big oil.

Posted by Monique | October 12, 2007 4:28 PM

Cycloptichorn,

I can say with certainty that the war in Iraq is an attack against a nation which had not attacked US soil. As doc points out, and as was said by others earlier, US and UK planes were fired upon for years in the no-fly zones established after the first Gulf War.

As for whether "the war in Iraq was a poor decision", that is a subjective judgment call and entirely up for debate. I personally believe that only history will tell if it proved to be a poor decision or not.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 4:33 PM

It's interesting to me that:

Some here are far more interested in insulting other people's opinions then they are having productive discussion, and;

Some here don't understand the difference between Correlation and Causation.

Russ,

War is Peace, Black is White, Up is Down. I get where you're going. I've read a book about this very topic; maybe you're familiar with it?

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 4:36 PM

Monique,

Thanks for your response; I must say however that 'history will tell' is a convenient way for those who have made errors to avoid taking any sort of short-term responsibility whatsoever for those errors.

I contend that attacking countries who do not first attack us will nearly always be judged by history as errors. I think there are very few instances of unprovoked attacks in history that one could point to and say, 'now there was a smart, wise decision by a just and freedom-loving country.'

Posted by Crimso | October 12, 2007 4:58 PM

"Some here don't understand the difference between Correlation and Causation."

And some Nobel laureates also have trouble with this concept. Cause and effect are surpisingly difficult to scientifically establish. It is easy to do so in very simple systems. As you have correctly noted, we are talking about an incredibly complex system. Establishing cause and effect becomes much, much more difficult as the complexity of the system increases. The fact that we will likely have to be contented with correlation in no way relieves those who believe in AGW from the responsibility to establish causation if they want to call it settled science. I think that making major changes to our society on the premise that we are dealing with anything remotely resembling settled science is a disaster waiting to happen. Science is strewn with ideas and concepts for which there was more believable evidence than AGW, but in hindsight were quite wrong.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 5:11 PM

Crimso,

I don't disagree with your last post. Personally, I think that changes should be made with an eye to the future; instead of tearing down or closing old factories, grandfather them in as standards rise slowly over time.

Look at it this way - the way you feel about Gore's alarmism is the way that many felt/feel about Bush's alarmism. Global Warming is like Islamofascism: a problem to be recognized and confronted over time, not something to reorganize your entire way of life over.

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 5:27 PM

The notion of only responding to an attack on your territory is quite obsolete. The Union attacked the Confederacy when they had never attacked Northern soil.

In the Spanish American war, we attacked Cuba, Guam and the Philippines when there was no proof the Spanish had blown up the USS Maine.

We entered WWI based on an intercept - the Zimmerman telegram - an offer by the Germans the return the Southwestern US to Mexico if they would attack us.

Japan attacked the Pacific fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor, yet we also Germany and Italy who had not attacked us.

We intervened in Korea when no Korean ever attacked the US.

Vietnamese gunboats fired on the Mattox and the Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin, but that claim was not substantiated.

For half a century we stood nuclear alert prepared to obliterate the Soviet Union and Communist China while they were obliterating us. We had no intention of waiting until a warhead detonated over America.

In 1979, Iranian forces seized our embassy, took 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days. During that time they declared war on the US. Carter, the buffoon of the 20th century, did nothing. Before Bush leaves office, we will attack Iran before they attack us.

If someone points a gun at you, it is not necessary to wait to take action until pull the trigger.

I suppose you would have waited until New York or Los Angeles disappeared in a mushroom cloud or until the US Security Council and General Assembly authorized us to defend ourselves.

Democrats refuse to defend this nation and that is why they should never again be entrusted with national security.

Arch

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 5:31 PM

Arch,

I must say, if the title of this thread were a serious one, your name would undoubtedly reside directly at the end of the ellipsis.

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 5:45 PM

Cyclo

A silly response from a silly trool. You are without substance.

Goodbye

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 12, 2007 5:51 PM

Cyclops said:

"Conservatives are MORE interested in blowing things up then in peace."

Al Gore = Nobel Peace Prize = prize endowed by the guy who invented the stuff used to blow things up. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

docjim505:

Spinsanity sorts out the leftist's dishonesty regarding the "Iraq imminent threat" line here:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

By the way, I found it laughable that in much of the "news" coverage of this story today (particularly CBS and ABC Radio), they were desperately trying to spin Gore's winning a prize into...a setback for President Bush! Too insane...

As for Gore, I found this memorable quote from Cyclops' friends at DailyKOS:

"Not only has Al Gore been my President for the last seven years, but the Nobel Committee has recognized him as the leader he is."


Posted by newton | October 12, 2007 6:02 PM

They awarded the same prize to Mikhail Gorbachev years ago for having "opened" the Soviet Union into disarray. However, the three people who made the fall of the Soviet Empire a reality - Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II - ... not even a snowball.

When they gave it to Rigoberta Menchu - whose bio, it turns out, was "fake but accurate" long before Dan Rather ever said a word about GWB -, I stopped taking it seriously.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 6:10 PM

Arch,

I must say, I've never been accused of been a trool before.

Let me ask you: if you honestly believe that Iran has been 'at war' with us since 1979; then didn't the Reagan administration engage in traitorous activities? Shouldn't Ledeen be investigated and tried for conspiring with our enemies? How about Halliburton - they do quite a bit of business with people we are at 'war' with.

I think you know as well as anyone that we are not at war with Iran; and you are incorrect about the wisdom of attacking them. They are not a threat to us in any way, other then the fact that they drive people who have nothing better to worry about into hyperbolic and silly assumptions.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 6:26 PM

Cycloptichorn,

On the matter of Iran you are so far off the map as to be on another planet.

Iran, through its own actions, and through its fully funded and established and controlled proxies, adjuncts of the IRGC and Quds Forces, such as Hezzbollah, have killed more Americans in the Middle East and other parts of the world since 1979 than any other entity other than AQ.

Reagan? Traitorious activities? You weren't around as an adult during the reagan years, were you?

But, overall, you come here, expound on matters of feelings rather than matters of fact, and use all sorts of boiler-plate most commonly found on Kos and other related or sympathetic sites, and dance around the majority of questions posed, changing the subject and the "goal posts" as they say, when your argumentation is exposed in its vapidness.

The subject of this thread is Al Gore, the Peace Prize, and the theory of causation of global warming. Do you, with a straight face accept that Al Gore fully met the requirments set forth in the will of Alfred Nobel for the bestowing of the Nobel Peace Prize? Can you, with a straight face, place Al Gore on equal footing as Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, the Dali Lama, Medicins sans Frotntieres, George C. Marshall, Eli Weisel or Andrei Sakharov among others who were awarded the Peace Prize?

Posted by foston | October 12, 2007 6:33 PM

>>>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?

This was an excellent question. A question that is truly a good point. Not all liberals (me included) supported Kyoto because of this. However, this is a discussion that would NEVER have happened without raising our collective consciousness to the question in the first place. Which is why Al Gore won the nobel peace prize.

Bush sided with the Neo cons who said it did not exist. Now every candidate recognizes the problem, and repects the 90% of Liberals, 80% of independents, and 60% of conservatives who favor IMMEDIATE ACTION.

I find it arrogant for anyone to criticize that many people who understand that this problem is significant, is real, and must be addressed.

I really don't think of it as a partisan issue to be real.

If Ron Paul himself came up with a better plan than Hillary, he's got my vote. But not Grewt Gingrinch. sorry, I can't elect the next Fuhr.

Posted by PackerBronco | October 12, 2007 6:35 PM

Newton wrote:

However, the three people who made the fall of the Soviet Empire a reality - Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II - ... not even a snowball.

Which is of course one the central points of this thread. As Cy himself admitted, the Nobel Peace Prize is not meant for conservatives (at least not anymore). And that Berlin Wall thing? Well, according to Cy the people of Germany did that all by themselves. Reagan, Thatcher, and JP II didn't have any part in that. Besides their achievement is small potatoes compared to making a movie about the weather. You know, what's freeing a few million people enslaved behind the iron curtain compared to that?

So, yeah we conservatives look at this Nobel Peace Prize thing and shrug and say, "Nice hardware Al. A present from your buddies, we assume?" If the award had any integrity left it would be an achievement, as it is, it doesn't mean anything to us on this side of the aisle.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 6:36 PM

coldwarrior,

I'll make you a deal. You tell me with a straight face that the Iran-Contra affair wasn't an act of treason, being ran out of our Executive branch, and I'll tell you with a straight face that Gore deserved the award.

The fact that your group of ideologues holds up Ollie North as some sort of hero really speaks volumes about the morality of the Republican party.

Posted by Swede | October 12, 2007 6:50 PM

I hope all of you folks dry-humping Algore's leg are purchasing your carbon credits to offset the bs artist as he jets around the world telling us the sky is falling.

Every time he turns on his A/C at home, seal pups cry.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 6:54 PM

Bush was against Kyoto for the exact reason I pointed out and the same reasons you, yourself, highlighted, foston.

If you, a liberal, are against Kyoto, and Bush for the same reasons was against Kyoto, why are you right and Bush wrong?

In the late 1970's, the really really big environemntal problem raised all across the scientific community was global cooling. We became aware of it. But, before the same scientific community could begin sprinkling coal dust across the Arctic ice pack, suddenly, global cooling stopped, no explanation was given. 30 years later we are now told the there is global warming. Actually the mean global ambient temperatures have raised just about a degree or so, if we are to believe the accuracy of the instruments that obtained the data, and a large number of these collectors are already suspect and are limited in their location, most all in the United States and Europe, and almost all within a shout of major metropolitan areas. We have had recent climate shift, and the northern jet streams have risen northward, especially over North America for the past two winters. In the south the southern jet streams have expanded and moved a bit north of their normal patterns. Same globe.

What causes the most concern by scientists, environmentalists and a large segment of the public who are not in lockstep behind Gore's alarmism, is we have yet to define, with any standard of precision, what is causing the present global climate trends. Is such a normal cyclical global pattern found many many times over the past million years? Is such solely caused by CO2? Is such entirely man-made?

Does Piltdown man have any meaning for you?

Before we jump on the bandwagon with our limited resources and expend those same resources to fight a problem, a theoretical problem, wouldn't one be better served if there were some solid supporting evidence of the alleged causation of the problem?

Computer models that cannot reproduce results when fed actual recorded data over a period of years, are just that, computer models. These same computer models are at the root of Gore's alarmism. Shouldn't that cause a real nonpolitical scientist to raise doubts and questions? Or do you believe the causation of global warming is settled science? And, if it is settled science, why is not Gore taking the lead, leading by example, and why are not members of Congress and all our state and municipal governments not turning over all of their resources to stop the same? If global warming and its causation is settled science, don't you think everyone would gladly be on board? I live here too. So do my kids and grandkids. It'd be a bit churlish if I were to prevent anything from stopping global warming if I had the settled science right in front of me.

Posted by DTL | October 12, 2007 7:11 PM

Denial of Life, Denial, but love of Death - that's what the conservative necrophiliac theocratic lunatics nourish their souls with - untruths, lies, and a maddening blindness to the conditions of the world and what we as human beings have done to one another and to the earth. How dare anyone critize Gore - or any of the many Union of Concerned Scientists who are warning us -
I have spent hundreds of thousands of miles checking out the condition of the earth in my Great Plains region and I can tell you as a witness - that the damage which the mining, coal, oil, and others who the Conservatives champion - is immense, pathetic and disturbing.

Posted by rodt | October 12, 2007 7:16 PM

Arch, your post regarding sources of the % carbon dioxide was of real interest, especially the 4% originating from fossil fuels. Do you have a link for that? Actually, I would be glad to just be able to see calculations/measurements from CO2 associated with respiration and combustion of fossil fuels. Thanks.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 7:16 PM

The Iran-Contrea affair was NOT an act of treason. It was an activity covered under two Presidential Findings, signed by the Director of Central Intelligence, and the President, with the concurance of the Attorney General, and in consultation with the leading members of both select committees of Congress.

The part of Iran-Contra that ran afoul of the law was conducted by a small group within the National Security Council, Oliver North the most notable, and their effort was put into play with the consent of William Casey, and in effort to obtain the release of a dear personal friend of mine who was kidnapped by Iranian backed and controlled Hezzbollah, who systematically tortured him in the most unspeakable ways, and put it on video tape and had these video tapes delived to a number of US Embassy's in the region. I saw one of the tapes myself. I do not believe their original actions to obtain his release were motivated by anything other than stopping the horrifying display Hezzbollah was taping each week.

As for the Contra side, we were authorized by both houses of Congress, and also with Presidential Findings, approved by the leading members of both select committees, to provide support for the anti-Sandinista forces in Central America. As we were getting to the point of having a very real and successful effort against the Sandinistas, a new Congress passed the Boland Amendment, subject still to legal and Constitutional question, and all funding was cut off.

Two different actions, both initially covered under law...then came the idea, spawned by Pindexter and North, to co-mingle funds from the authorized covert sale of select pieces of HAWK missile systems and F-14 parts in exchange for Teheran releasing the Beirut hostages, and, using the proceeds from the Iranians to provide covert support to the anti-Sandinista forces we established and who were still facing an enemy in the field.

My gripe about the whole thing is that the NSC [NSC, Poindexter, Bud McFarlane, and North] were allowed by Casey to spearhead the effort, and they got taken to the cleaners by a number of experienced confidence men in the region and by a former Air Force general whose last assignment was head of logistics for the US mission to support the Shah, a position he was alleged, and with a good body of evidence, too, to have turned into a personal business. Had the pros from Diover been allowed to take the lead, it would in all likelihood turned out different and with more success.

No, generally and legally speaking, Iran-Contra was not a treasonous activity. Illegal? Yes. Amateurish? Yes. Treasonous? No.

And in exchange you will tell me that Gore deserved the award, right? Some deal.

And, by extension, you hold Gore up to the same high standards of selflessness, personal sacrifice, risk of death, as Eli Weisel, the Dali Lama, Alberft Schweitzer, Medicins sans Frontieres, and Andrei Sakharov? Wow!

Well, that certainly puts you in perspective all across the board. And my initial hunch was correct. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 12, 2007 7:23 PM

DTL, no one is denying that we have large scale environmental problems. Our overall costs of living have risen sharply because of the costs of ameliorating the effects of mining, fossil fuels and so much more. I can't find a single rational person who thinks we should pollute at will whenever and wherever we wish. Least not here in the States.

But, would you mind telling China to stop using their rivers as outflow basins for their mines and industries? Would you mind telling the Chinese that their unchecked use of fossil fuels is not only driving up the price of my gasoline but also polluting the air from China across the Pacific and into the Great Plains?

Likewise tell a few other nations that have absolutely no polllutions controls, and are stil lburning carbons in open pits and using slash and buren agricultural methods, are cutting down Rain Forests across the tropics, are denuding the landscape across the world by the hyperusage of harsh abrasive bleaching chemical fertilizers?

And these nations are exempt from Kyoto, too.

Posted by arch | October 12, 2007 7:36 PM

Let's return to the bogus issue of AGW. I'll suspend reason say Gore is right. Man caused this round of global warming. Our coal fired power plants and fossil fueled transportation system are at fault. The culprit is as he claims the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. We believe this so fervently that we eliminate all fossil fuels worldwide. China, India, Western Europe, Japan, America and everyone else allow their industries to grind to a halt.

What would be the effect? A return to the 8th century for a decrease in greenhouse gas of 1.44%. Worth the price? Hardly. The fact is that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas produced mainly by the oceans an animal respiration. Water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas. Greenhouse effect is not the problem.

The real cause of global climate change is the sun. When its radiation increases, the earth and the other planets warm. When its radiation subsides, the solar system cools. Someday the sun will die in a massive explosion. If Al Gore can do something about the sun, I suggest we send him there as a diplomat - the sooner the better. Let him take his silly supporters with him.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Arch,

"We believe this so fervently that we eliminate all fossil fuels worldwide."

Has this been advocated by Gore, or anyone at all?

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 7:56 PM

My, my, my... All the AGW Gorebots on this board have had quite a lot to say about those of us who DARE to criticize their prophet, but not a damned thing to say about why they think AGW actually exists, or even why Algore deserved a PEACE Prize for flying around the world in his private jet and telling the rest of us that the world will end unless we return to the halcyon days of the 8th century (will we be allowed to use torches to light our hovels?). Instead, between hypocritical pleas to have a "discussion", they call us "arrogant" for questioning the reality of AGW. How DARE we criticize Algore and all those selfless scientists who tell us that the world's gonna end if we (not they) don't stop driving SUV's? We just don't understand science, you see. And, anyway, Reagan did Iran-Contra. So there!

I also must say that we conservatives have been called quite a few things in my experience, but "necrophiliacs" breaks new ground.

Yep. Rational discussion. That's what the libs want.

Riiiiiiiight.

Posted by Russ | October 12, 2007 8:09 PM

Cyclo,

What? I failed to see a point in your answer to me. Perhaps you could further elucidate.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 12, 2007 8:26 PM

Russ,

A quick perusal of a novel entitled '1984' by George Orwell will no doubt clear up your confusion.

Posted by ac patriot | October 12, 2007 9:08 PM

Interesting how the cap'n, and most of you, ignore the fact that the prize was not given solely to Al Gore, but also to the IPCC, the panel consisting of mostly scientists that is most responsible for changing policy. Al Gore got the award for disseminating the information to the public with his documentary, but it is the IPCC that will have the biggest influence on world governments. Ignoring that half of the award is disingenuous, to say the least.

Have any of you bothered to look at the IPCC reports (or the more wieldy executive summaries)? Unlike, say, the Cap'n or you commentors, the IPCC based its report on peer reviewed scientific journal articles. The global scientific consensus is that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, and I challenge any of you to find a modern, credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that says otherwise.

Global warming is real, and it's one of the biggest problems we face in the 21st century. Bravo to the IPCC and Al Gore for trying to do something about it. The prize is well-deserved.

Posted by viking01 | October 12, 2007 9:33 PM

It all depends on whose name is on the check for a piece of lamentable, now irrelevant, Alfred Nobel's money. The Goracle or some grants-hungry activist committee?

If only Al Gore pockets the loot then he's won the "prize" whether legitimate or mere political patronage like terrorist Yasser Arafat or fake writer Rigoberta Menchu. Fine company those two. If Yasser weren't already dead those three could form their own peer review committee sorta like a NY Times editorial board. Then they could sit around and agree with each other and pass it off as "peer-review."

Posted by Russ | October 12, 2007 9:55 PM

Cyclo,

I've read it. You've completely missed the point.

It takes two to make peace, but only one to make war. Once someone decides to make war on you, there's a war, whether you want to admit it or not.

At that point, the only question is whether or not you fight back. In your version of "peace," you would lie on the ground and never hit back, b/c that would be too "warlike."

Posted by Russ | October 12, 2007 9:57 PM

Cyclo,

Perhaps you could also enlighten me what Gore's preaching has to do with "peace." Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the realm of science? Or would his science not stand up to scutiny.

As I've said before, I'll start buying more of global warming when those who preach about it start acting like it's a crisis themselves by living their own words.

Posted by docjim505 | October 12, 2007 10:17 PM

I looked into the IPCC and tried to dig up the CV's for some of its chairmen. One of the Vice Chairmen is a Russian named Yuri A. Izrael, the Director of the Global Climate and Ecology Institute in the Russian Academy of Sciences. I found it a little unusual that he's working for IPCC... as he doesn't seem to believe in AGW. According to an article he wrote for the Russian News and Information Agency in 2005 (1):

There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.

He states that the earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 degC in the past century, but that this isn't cause for alarm:

According to 10,000 meteorological stations, average temperatures have increased by just 0.6 degrees in the last 100 years. But there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures.

Global temperatures increased throughout the 1940s, declined in the 1970s and subsequently began to rise again. Present-day global warming resembles the 1940s, when ships could easily navigate Arctic passages. However, man's impact was much smaller at that time. A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease. These sensational findings are one of Mother Nature's surprises.

Some of the alarmists have warned of all sorts of dire consequences if the temperature goes up too much. Is this based on science? No:

The European Union has established by fiat that a two-degree rise in global temperatures would be quite dangerous. However, this data is not scientifically sound. [emphasis mine - dj505]

I don't want to convey the impression that Izrael totally discounts global warming; such is not the case. Rather, he scoffs at the notion that all the data are in AND that we face imminent catastrophe if something isn't done right away.

Many specialists estimate the peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 400 PPM. Our calculations show that carbon-dioxide concentrations would increase by just 800 PPM if all known and produced fuel were incinerated in the space of a few hours. But we will never reach this ceiling. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 PPM (in Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.

In other words, we must comprehend what will happen while the carbon-dioxide levels will grow from the current 378 PPM to 800 PPM, that will hypothetically occur when all the fuel on earth is burned.

Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities.

O' course, Prof. Izrael is open to charges that HE is being swayed by politics. Let's recall the Russia initially opposed ratifying Kyoto, claiming (as many of us nasty ol' conservative necrophiliac DENIERS here in America have done) that it's a damned expensive solution to something that isn't a problem. Our friend Robert Novak covered Putin's initial refusal to ratify Kyoto in 2003, including the remarks of one of Putin's chief scientific advisors, Prof. Izrael:

The Russian scientists were even more resolute. Yuri Izrael, Putin's most influential science adviser, declared: "All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science." (2)

Indeed, Izrael's boss, Russia's wannabe dictator, laughed at global warming:

Russia's ratification is needed to enforce Kyoto's global requirements for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, with vast economic consequences. Global warming "might even be good," cracked Putin. "We'd spend less money on fur coats."

So, it might be that Izrael was simply parrotting the party line.

WAIT! Am I suggesting that (gasp!) POLITICS might play a roll in the global warming debate?

Hmmmm... Could be!

But what about Russia and Kyoto now? If Putin and his advisors intially thought it was too expensive to ratify, why the about-face?

It seems that Russia may be taking a leaf from Algore's book and making money off global warming. According to a more recent RIAN article:

It will not be difficult for Russia to abide by its commitments; it has amassed a huge reserve of emissions credits because of an economic decline in the 1990s. Despite its growing economy, by 2012 Russia will by no means exceed the level of emissions in 1990, which is the KP's year of departure. (3) [emphasis mine - dj505]

Can you say "CHA-CHING!"?

I wonder who else might be making money off of AGW?

The article also puts some numbers on those nasty ol' greenhouse gases and what Kyoto is intended to do about them:

There are quite a few experts that call into doubt the climatic effect that the KP's measures will have. Now the concentration of greenhouse gases in the air is about 370 ppm (carbon dioxide in parts per million). By 2012, this figure is expected to grow by 18 ppm if the Kyoto measures are not carried out, or by 16-17 ppm if they are. The difference is a mere one or two ppm. This is what the Kyoto Protocol's critics emphasize. But experts believe that even a 1ppm reduction would be quite good. If we proceed at such a pace, we may eventually be able to stabilize humanity's influence on the climate.

Wow. One or two parts per million. This will "stabilize humanity's influence on the climate". Color me skeptical. I wonder if it is possible to measure that quantity with any accuracy on a world-wide scale or, more precisely, if there is a statistically significant difference between 18ppm and 16-17ppm. Somehow, I doubt it.

-----------

(1) http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html

(2) http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/column.novak.opinion.russian/

(3) http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Russia_Kyoto_Protocol_And_Climate_Change_999.html

Posted by jaeger51 | October 13, 2007 1:49 AM

Kofi Amman. Yassir Arafat. Jimmy Carter. Al Gore. The Swedish word "peace" must actually translate into English as "a#@hole".

Posted by ac patriot | October 13, 2007 5:51 AM

docjim505 -

I appreciate the time you took in researching your post, however you did not produce a journal article, but rather three news articles. Your article (1) is from 2005, which seems recent, but predates the IPCC report by a few years, and is basically obsolete scientifically (not that it had any in the first place). I agree that it's interesting that Yuri works for the IPCC, but that only shows that they considered dissenting opinions, of which he is but one.

Your second article is even older, 2003, ancient to climatologists... and doesn't make any point your first article didn't. In your discussion of it, you bring up Russia's politics, and how they could possibly benefit from carbon credits. First, this has no bearing on the science. Global warming and the actions we take against it will affect different countries in different ways, some will benefit, some won't. However, it is undeniable that if we don't act the poorest people in the world will be the ones to suffer. Hey that's fine as long as we can drive our Hummers, right?

Your third article is at least modern, but that's the end of its merits. It backs up your claim that Russia might benefit from one effort to mitigate global warming, fine, that's possible. And the Kyoto Protocol was definitely flawed, although I would say because it didn't go far enough. Regardless, these still have nothing to do with science, but rather policy.

The gist of your comment seems to be that global warming is a conspiracy to gain Russia higher status on the world scale?(!) This is laughable to say the least. If the IPCC report is right, its going to cost all of us, including Russia.

Posted by docjim505 | October 13, 2007 6:55 AM

ac patriot;

Wow. The pace of global warming "science" must be blistering hot to make a two year-old opinion "obsolete". If Academician Izrael was wrong (not only wrong, but had no "science") a mere two years ago, then why in the world should his opinion be trusted now? Further, I was unaware that there were ANY dissenting opinions regarding AGW other than those bought and paid for by the nasty ol' oil companies. Algore and his minions have ASSURED us that there is "consensus" on AGW, you see, by which they mean that, "EVERY scientist in the world (except the ones paid off by Big Oil) agrees with us, so no further discussion is needed, wanted, or allowed. So shut up." Come to think of it, didn't Algore himself say just a few months ago that "the discussion is over" about AGW?

That Izrael's two year-old opinion is now presumably wrong is part of the problem with AGW: the science is shaky, to say the least. I'd like to see the research that proves his earlier opinion wrong, and I'd especially like to see what Prof. Izrael says now.

ac patriot: ... you bring up Russia's politics, and how they could possibly benefit from carbon credits. First, this has no bearing on the science. Global warming and the actions we take against it will affect different countries in different ways, some will benefit, some won't.

This is laughable. My point - which you seem quite intentt on missing - is that political decisions may well drive the "research" into AGW. The Russians say early on that they won't sign Kyoto, that the science is bad, and that even if the theory is correct, the effects won't be especially harmful. Then - lo and behold! - Russia signs! Now, unless there was some earth-shattering new evidence for the reality of AGW presented to Putin, why would he do this? Because (though I didn't quote earlier) the EU was putting pressure on him to sign and dangling membership in the WTO as a carrot. Further, it would appear that he grasped that Russia could make a few bucks from signing Kyoto by selling off indulgences... er, emmission credits, I should say.

Scientists who question AGW are routinely discredited by the Gorebots because they are "in the pay of Big Oil". I offer you motive and circumstantial evidence of why a highly-placed Russian scientist who recently discounted AGW might have suddenly become an AGW acolyte... and you brush it aside. Try connecting the dots sometime.

ac patriot: Your third article is at least modern, but that's the end of its merits. It backs up your claim that Russia might benefit from one effort to mitigate global warming, fine, that's possible. And the Kyoto Protocol was definitely flawed, although I would say because it didn't go far enough. Regardless, these still have nothing to do with science, but rather policy.

Good heavens, man, what do you think the AGW debate is ABOUT if not "policy"? It isn't some dry, scientific debate confined to the halls of academia: it is about affecting (if not outright restructuring) the world economy. I have pointed out that there appears to be quite a lot of money involved, at least for the Russians. You huffily reply that, "That has nothing to do with SCIENCE!" Hmmm... What about the AGW "deniers"? If they work for a think-tank that is (gasp!) funded by Big Oil, does their work also get a pass? Or is it only scientists who agree with you who are not succeptible to bribery and / or political pressure? You even admit that some countries will benefit from Kyoto; might it be that scientists from those countries feel pressure to conduct their research accordingly?

ac patriot: The gist of your comment seems to be that global warming is a conspiracy to gain Russia higher status on the world scale?(!) This is laughable to say the least. If the IPCC report is right, its going to cost all of us, including Russia.

Um, no. The "gist" of my comments is that Russia stands not only to be unaffected by Kyoto in the short term, but also apparently stands to make quite a lot of money from it. As to whether AGW will "cost" Russia... Putin didn't seem to think so a few years ago. Indeed, I can't help but wonder what Siberia would be like if the earth's temperature went up a bit. All that land that is currently effectively uninhabitable because it's too cold might become not only habitable, but even arable and otherwise productive. Russia might even get a warm-water port open to the Atlantic, something they've wanted for centuries.

I think that you need to consider how "science" works. Pure science is pretty cut-and-dried: one forms a theory, gathers data, tests the theory, revises or discards it, etc, etc, in accordance with the scientific method. Ideally, there are no emotions or motivations other than the quest for knowledge involved. Natch, this doesn't always obtain: scientists are humans, too, and feel pressure to prove theories that they've spent a lot of time devloping, or disprove the work of a rival, or simply cover themselves because they find that they've made a mistake in the past and don't want the embarrassment of having to admit it. I AM a scientist, and I've seen these human impulses at work. Throw money into the mix and you've got a recipe for shaky science.

And there IS money involved in AGW: a lot of it. On a small scale, there is research money that the scientists are after. "I need money to work on AGW. The prospective donor believes whole-heartedly in AGW. If I want to have the best chance of getting the grant, it is in my interest to at least make it appear that I do, too."

Let's assume that Algore has $1 million to fund some AGW research. Do you think he would give it to a scientist who openly proclaims that he is unconvinced that AGW exists and wants to conduct research to investigate it possible existence, or to another scientist who openly proclaims that he wholeheartedly believes in AGW and wants to conduct research into its potential effects?

I don't think that's a hard question to answer. I suggest that something similar has happened with Prof. Izrael in Russia: he originally scoffed at AGW, but when his boss (Putin) decided that it was economically advantageous to Russia to get on board the AGW bandwagon, he changed his tune.

Posted by arch | October 13, 2007 8:05 AM

RODT

My source is the DoE EIA, but you must dig it out.

(Add the 3ws) eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/87-92rpt/chap1.html

Annual CO2 are: natural 160,000 B Metric Tons, Human-made 8,000 B Metric Tons.

This second paragraph of the Global Sources of Greenhouse Gasses

"The principal natural sources of carbon dioxide are the release of carbon dioxide by oceans (100 billion metric tons per year), the aerobic decay of vegetation (30 billion metric tons), and plant and animal respiration (30 billion metric tons). The principal anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about three-quarters of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Natural processes, known and unknown, absorb substantially all of the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about 3.2 to 3.6 billion metric tons."

Three quarters of 8 is 6. Divide that by 160 and you get 3.75%.

Oak Ridge has some data also

at cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html (no 3Ws required)

Arch

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 13, 2007 8:15 AM

RE: docjim505 (October 13, 2007 6:55 AM)

Yeoman's work, docjim505. I appreciate your efforts but I just don't have the patience you seem to enjoy. ;)

Whenever I hear scientific "consensus" thrown out, I think of the consensus of flat Earth. We now all live as heretics. Enlightened, but heretics nonetheless. It's a useful term in the most general sense but is not the exclamation point of scientific investigation. Too many fail to grasp the the word's shortcomings in a discipline that thrives on the challenge of conventions.

I too was a scientist and saw how our humanity interrupted or twisted scientific method. Science is hard. Humanity (as Homo sapiens) isn't. And modern man prefers easy.

Posted by arch | October 13, 2007 9:08 AM

Cycloptichorn:

I said, "they [Iran] declared war on the US." They believe they are at war with us and they intend to attack our interests in the ME. The historical enemy of Iran have been the Sunni states - Iraq & Saudi Arabia. If they manage to acquire a nuclear weapon, Iranians already have aircraft capable of delivering it to any target in the Middle East or even Western Europe.

Certainly during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) we aided the Iraqis, gave them intelligence. As a consequence, both Iran and Iraq were forced to sell oil at levels above their OPEC quotas thereby creating an oversupply, depressing the price. At least part of the economic boom in the 1980 was due to the collapse of OPEC. In this country, however, it was largely a result of Reagan's tax cuts.

Of course, I'm sure you have much more experience on the ground in Iran than I garnered during my three assignment there. I certainly hope your statement, "They are not a threat to us in any way," is correct. My observations lead me to think otherwise.

Arch

Posted by Hell's Penguin | October 13, 2007 11:14 AM

I'm confused.

Why does he get the Nobel Peace Prize for half-assed (and badly researched) work for the climate?

What's next? Michael Moore getting the Nobel Prize in physics for Bowling for Columbine?

What the hell is wrong with the world?

Posted by rodt | October 13, 2007 3:03 PM

Arch, thanks very much for the link. Alas, more reading ....

Posted by docjim505 | October 13, 2007 6:03 PM

AD,

Thanks. I realize that I'm wasting my time, but this issue just soooooo pisses me off. I make no claims to be a Noble-quality chemist, but if I tried to influence company policy (and specifically advocated changes to our process that would cut into our profits) based on "science" this shaky, I'd be fired so fast my my letter of termination would spontaneously combust.

The fact of the matter is that AGW is a religion. It's damned hard - and, actually, bloody dangerous - to try to shake people's religious faith with logic or facts. I just wish the libs would pick a religion that's a little less loopy and destructive. Jim Jones, where are you when we need you?

Posted by ac patriot | October 13, 2007 6:14 PM

docjim505 -

Wow. The pace of global warming "science" must be blistering hot to make a two year-old opinion "obsolete".

Actually, yeah, the pace is pretty blistering. Scientists consider this an important issue. It doesn't matter whether it's obsolete anyway - You're talking about a 2 year old news article stating the opinion of one man who obviously doesn't represent the view of the IPCC. Your article is irrelevant to the topic I brought up, which was the science of global warming.

"Algore and his minions have ASSURED us that there is "consensus" on AGW, you see, by which they mean that, "EVERY scientist in the world (except the ones paid off by Big Oil) agrees with us, so no further discussion is needed, wanted, or allowed.

First, Al Gore has nothing to do with the research, he just presented it. IPCC is not his "minions". Do you think Yuri works for Al Gore? As for the question of consensus, I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or just moronic. Scientific Consensus means that the vast majority of scientists think that the theory is correct. QUITE OBVIOUSLY, "vast majority" doesn't mean every scientist on the planet. Do you understand? At the same time, the scientific discussion is over. Have you read the IPCC report, or any scientific journal? Here's a piece from Science magazine that will update you on the findings and what the scientific community thinks of them, for an example.

"Now, unless there was some earth-shattering new evidence for the reality of AGW presented to Putin, why would he do this?"

Um, because he is a politician trying to do what's best for his country? His decision not to join, and then to join, may have had had nothing to do with what scientists think, just as Bush and cronies ignore US scientists when making their decisions. Russia is a poor and corrupt country, and I can't believe your bringing up Putin's erratic actions. Do you think Putin influences US scientists? It's a global consensus.

"I offer you motive and circumstantial evidence of why a highly-placed Russian scientist who recently discounted AGW might have suddenly become an AGW acolyte... and you brush it aside."

Might have? Tell me, what is Yuri's opinion on AGW now? You don't know, and I don't know. It's stupid to base a discussion on your suppositions on what someone "might" think. That's why I brush it aside.

"Good heavens, man, what do you think the AGW debate is ABOUT if not "policy"? It isn't some dry, scientific debate confined to the halls of academia: it is about affecting (if not outright restructuring) the world economy..... You even admit that some countries will benefit from Kyoto; might it be that scientists from those countries feel pressure to conduct their research accordingly?

First, the debate is about science first. You AGW deniers have to show us how the science is wrong first, and you just haven't done that. We don't dismiss the few dissenting scientists because of who they work for, we dismiss them because they have bad science.

As for your conspiracy theory that scientists feel pressure to conduct their research according to some political scheme, that doesn't explain why the majority of US scientists feel that AGW is correct, after all according to all of you anything we do to ameliorate it will cripple us economically, nor have you offered any evidence connecting the results of research to "political pressure".

"I AM a scientist, and I've seen these human impulses at work. Throw money into the mix and you've got a recipe for shaky science."

Yeah, well for a scientist you seem to have a pretty hard time bringing up any compelling arguments about the science. Considering that, and the fact that you don't seem to know what scientific consensus means, I have a hard time believing you are a real scientist. Computer "scientist" perhaps? I AM a scientist as well, and I've not seen any of the pro-AGW conspiracy that you seem to feel is so evident, though I'm not a climatologist.

Oh, and despite your paranoid delusions, Al Gore (that's two words btw) is not the primary funder of global warming research in the world or the US. Try to keep that in mind before you do anything rash.

"I suggest that something similar has happened with Prof. Izrael in Russia: he originally scoffed at AGW, but when his boss (Putin) decided that it was economically advantageous to Russia to get on board the AGW bandwagon, he changed his tune."

There you go again, making suppositions on what one Russian scientist "might" think. What a waste of time.

Posted by docjim505 | October 14, 2007 8:12 AM

acpatriot: ... for a scientist you seem to have a pretty hard time bringing up any compelling arguments about the science. Considering that, and the fact that you don't seem to know what scientific consensus means, I have a hard time believing you are a real scientist.

I refer you to my post of October 12, 2007 12:59 PM in which I list several criticisms of the AGW "evidence". arch and MarkW have also listed scientific criticism of AGW. The Gorebots ASSURE us that the evidence is real and overwhelming. It doesn't seem so to me, and there are other scientists who are also skeptical. O' course, they are dismissed as either "bad" scientists or in the pay of Big Oil. I guess that those of us who don't buy into Reverend Algore's Traveling Global Warming Revival Show are just not "real" scientists.

Go back to college and try to learn what you obviously missed, i.e. that science is about skepticism and standards of proof, not about "consensus". We can all have (as scientists have had at various times) "consensus" that the earth is the center of the universe; or that disease is caused by "miasmas"; or that material gets heavier when it is burned due to the release of phlogiston; or that heavier-than-air flight is impossible; or that all matter is made of earth, wind, fire and water. "Consensus" doesn't make these things true. I would also suggest reviewing the history of men named (for example) Gallileo, Copernicus, and Pasteur. I seem to recall that they didn't buy into the "consensus" of their day and were pilloried for it. Now, of course, we celebrate them as great thinkers who actually advanced human knowledge instead of huddling like sheep (a particularly apt metaphor regarding Pasteur) with their peers in "consensus".

Finally, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to what it means in science to "prove" something. Spluttering about a "consensus" doesn't rise to the level of proof. Indeed, it smacks of snake oil or a Madison Avenue advertizing campaign: "Buy X-brand mouthwash; recommended by eight out of ten dentists!"

FWIW, Dr. Dr Theodor Landscheidt has written a lengthy article in which he names solar activity as a driving influence in the earth's temperature. This jibes with (I have heard) studies that show that the other planets are also heating up; unless you can demonstrate that there are SUV's on Mars, it seems to me that there can only be one culprit for this. Dr. Landscheidt writes (1):

The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is r = 0.95. [emphasis original - dj505]

Do I take this to be overwhelming evidence that "global warming" is driven solely by solar activity? No. I present it, rather, as evidence that at least one scientist, apparently with a more powerful argument than "consensus" on his side, thinks that "global warming" is caused by something other that Americans driving Hummers.

Dr. Landscheidt also writes:

Precise forecasts that prove correct are a sharp criterion for efficient science. The protagonists of global warming remain empty-handed in this respect in spite of great material and personal expense. In the eighties S. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, predicted in his book “Global Warming” a huge jump in temperature, polar ice melting away, seas surging across the land, famine on an epidemic scale, and ecosystem collapse. Today this is no longer taken seriously. Yet other climatologists, too, made forecasts in the eighties they no longer maintain. C. D. Schönwiese [99], usually critical and cautious in his statements, still predicted in 1987 a 4.5° C rise in temperature until 2030, though only as an upper limit. He thought that the sea level in the German Bay could rise by 1.5 m till 2040 and in the ocean around India even 2 to 3 m. A projection of his temperature forecast yields 11.8° C for the year 2100. At the climate conference in Villach in 1985 similar predictions were presented to the public. The IPCC still predicted in 1990 and 1992 that global temperature would rise 1.9° - 5.2° C until 2100 [100] and thought that a rise in sea level by 1.10 m was possible [36].

All these predictions have turned out to be untenable. It is accepted that global temperature has risen by 0.5° C in the last hundred years. Yet during the last fifty years the temperature has remained approximately at the same level, even though 70% of the anthropgenic carbon dioxide contribution was injected into the atmosphere during this time. From 1940 to 1970 the temperature fell, and according to satellitite data available since 1979, which are in good accord with balloon data [27], the trend in the lower troposphere has remained at -0.06° C per decade. The IPCC prediction made in 1992 proved so exaggerated that it had to be adjusted to reality three years later by reducing the rise range to 1° - 3.5° C by 2100. As to sea level rise, the IPCC meanwhile acknowledges (in accordance with a consensus in the specialized literature [3]) that sea level has risen by merely 18 cm in the last hundred years. According to M. Baltuck et al. [3] it is very probable that the rising sea level is due to natural causes and not to man’s contribution to the greenhouse effect.

This sort of thing makes me a little less in awe of the IPCC than you and your fellow Gorebots seem to be. It certainly doesn't cause me to want to start trying to move our economy back to the 8th century to try to avoid putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Let me close by restating a quote that I think strikes to the heart of the AGW debate:

"I will take global warming seriously when those who claim it is real live as if THEY take it seriously."

Posted by docjim505 | October 14, 2007 8:33 AM

I forgot to post the link to Dr. Langenschiedt's article.

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

Posted by KarenT | October 14, 2007 4:08 PM

docjim505,

"Go back to college and try to learn what you obviously missed, i.e. that science is about skepticism and standards of proof, not about 'consensus' ". That's what I have always thought, too. But maybe ac patriot is just more up to date than we are concerning "post-normal science":

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/post-normal-science-as-proof-for-global.html

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-post-normal-science.htm

And, of course, even data presented by the IPCC were less alarmist than Al Gore's movie, as in the case of his dramatic representation of huge future increases in sea level. But many scientists give him a pass because it furthers their agenda. Not exactly a model for rigorous scientific give-and-take.

On the other hand, Bjorn Lomborg seems to accept much of the IPCC's data but is still an outcast in the scientific community because his proposed political solutions are not in line with "consensus".

Posted by KarenT | October 14, 2007 4:40 PM

Second link on "post-normal science" was incomplete. Sorry.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-post-normal-science.html

Posted by docjim505 | October 14, 2007 5:53 PM

KarenT,

Thanks very much for the links. It would be of interest if Cap'n Ed would take this subject up in a post (hint-hint!). I found this statement quite pithy:

Here's a YouTube clip from a Harvard astrosphysicist on the subject of "precautionary principle" as applied to weather engineering and the punishment its critics faced half a millenium [sic?] ago. She has another word from the "post-normal" method of thinking: superstition. (1)

I would also like to cite an incredible quote from Mike Hulme's article in the Guardian. If you've not heard of Prof. Hulme (I had not prior to this), the Guardian identifies him as a professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He writes:

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer (1) has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.

If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage. (2) [emphasis mine - dj505]

If the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that any "real" scientist not in the pay of Big Oil believes it, why must science be taken off center stage? Why is Hulme advocating some sort of political / value / liberal-hippie-feel-good approach to deciding environmental policy rather than using the cold calculus of hard science?

Could it be that Hulme KNOWS that the "science" behind AGW is shaky?

Hmmmm.... COULD BE!


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

(1) Dr. Fred Singer is a Professor Emeritus of environmental science at UVA. He is one of those nasty ol' global warming deniers. In 2000, Dr. Singer testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Among his remarks, he said:

My name is Fred Singer. I am Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in Fairfax, Virginia, a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists. We work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization. SEPP does not solicit support from either government or industry but relies on contributions from individuals and foundations.

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."

I was especially struck by this statement:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming...

He goes on to cite that overwhelming evidence. He then takes on the computer "models" that the Gorebots and other Chicken Littles use to assure us that we're either going to roast or drown in a few decades unless we stop using incandescent light bulbs and start driving hybrid cars.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

(2) http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/post-normal-science-as-proof-for-global.html

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:13 AM

Cycloptichorn says:

"Some here are far more interested in insulting other people's opinions then they are having productive discussion"

Which is funny, considering he first showed up declaring that conservatives love to kill and destroy and how conservatives are stupid.

I'c guessing that Mr. C is nothing more than a slightly more eloquent than average troll.

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:21 AM

AC Patriot,

I have read the IPCC report. And if you think that the summary is more wieldy than the report, it's quite obvious that you haven't.

The report itself is actually quite non-alarmist. It indicates that we aren't sure what is happening and and are even less sure why.

The summary for politicians (and by politicians) has little connection with the actual report. Which is why the released the summary 6 months before they released the report. (They released them at the same time previously, and were repeatedly embarrassed when actual scientists showed how little releationship there was between the report and the summary. So they made sure they wouldn't be embarrassed this time, by only releasing the summary.)

Though even the summary is forced to admit how poor our understanding of climate actually is. 9 of the 12 factors that go into the climate modles are known with poor to moderate confidence.

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:29 AM

AC Pat,

It must bother you to find out that almost all of the scientific work in recent years, the last two years especially shows that AGW is nothing to worry about, and may not even be happening anyway?

Work showing the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, which explains much of the warming over the last century.

Work showing the existence and incredible strength of numerous negative feedbacks, which counteract any changes caused by CO2. The models all assume that feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive. Science shows otherwise, but then again, this was never about science.

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:36 AM

Since 1998, the earth's temperature has either fallen, or held steady every year.

Yet CO2 has continued to grow, if recent news accounts are accurrate, that growth has actually accelerated during those years.

If CO2 was the all powerfull, driving force behind climate, how could this be?

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:41 AM

Over the last half century, the output of the sun has grown stronger than at any time in the last 9000 years. So it's hardly a surprise that over the same time period, the earth has warmed.

All of the other planets in the solar system have warmed as well.

What is worrisome, is that many scientists think that the warm period is about to come to an end.

Over the last 5 thousand years, there has been a warm period followed by a dramatic cool down about every 1000 to 1100 years.

The mideval warm period started about 900 AD. The roman warm period was around 100BC. There were other warm periods around 2000 and 3000 BC.
All of these were followed by dramatic cooling periods. In the Little Ice Age that followed the Mideval warm period, millions died as crops failed.

According to scientists who study the sun, the next solar cycle will be average at best, and the one to follow could be one of the weakest ever recorded.

Posted by MarkW | October 15, 2007 6:48 AM

here's an interesting chart showing world wide temperatures over the last 30 years.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/satellite.GIF

The real world is not as scary as the models.

Posted by docjim505 | October 15, 2007 7:17 AM

MarkW;

(voice dripping with vitriol) Hmmph! I guess you're just a DENIER!

/sarcasm

Seriously, good stuff that you've posted. What kills me is that the libs who have faith in the reality of AGW set themselves up as the only ones interested in REAL science... yet discard out of hand anything that might contradict their quasi-religious belief. In my view, nobody with even a hazy understanding of science would advocate making major policy decisions on such a shaky theory. As you point out, IPCC admits (quietly) that not all of the factors that control the earth's climate are understood well if at all, yet the global warming acolytes are CERTAIN that CO2 released due to human activity is gonna kill us all. They attempt to shut down debate by shouting down and smearing their opponents. Real science doesn't work that way.

The sad thing is that, due to political pressure, the Gorebots are getting their way. As I wrote earlier, AGW is the greatest misuse of "science" in the history of man. It is snake oil on a global scale.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 15, 2007 4:43 PM

To give you an idea of how influential Gore is, it took a 16 years after Einstein's publication (1905) of his paper on the photoelectric effect for him to receive his Nobel prize (in 1921). That's because it took that long for this particular Einstein's theory to be proven correct.

Einstein never won a prize for either of his theories of relativity.

So, in the scale of things, Gore's viewpoint on global warming is equivalent to Einstein's theory on the photoelectric effect, and better than either of Einstein's theories on relativity.

It's only a matter of time before Gore's face appears on an Israeli banknote.

Posted by ac patriot | October 16, 2007 2:20 AM

docjim505 -

It's good to see a science-oriented post for once; My point has been all along that this is a scientific issue above all; even you have to admit that if the IPCC report is correct action should be taken.

"I refer you to my post of October 12, 2007 12:59 PM in which I list several criticisms of the AGW "evidence"

Obviously, I don't have time to scan every post of this incredibly long thread, but I can look at what you said, let's see:

"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."

What are you saying here, that you don't believe the Earth has actually warmed? That's usually accepted even by people on the right. The Bush administration certainly has accepted it. Also, I have to correct you here, the surface of the Earth doesn't have a single "temperature", as it's hardly in thermal equilibrium. When we talk about global warming, we're talking about a mean temperature rise. As for the methodology for evaluating the mean temperature, check out the IPCC FAQ, question 3.1 , which puts your claim to rest until you show me something that demonstrates that the methodology was not sufficient (i.e. that the uncertainties were too great) to measure a mean temperature.

"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."

Why is the age of the Earth the relevant scale? I would say the relevant time scale is the scale of climate fluctuations. We have the data over that scale. (But keep on reading before you have a coronary over this point)

"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.'

So you are saying we shouldn't even bother with the studies? Considering that the level of C02 is greater now than in any time in the history of humanity, it is unreasonable to simply assume all changes are natural without investigating the question. The Earth's atmosphere once lacked oxygen. If, say, we noticed that the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere was being depleted, would you say that we shouldn't bother investigating because it's "natural"?

"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."

This is flat out FALSE; I don't think I can take you seriously if you're going to spew lies like this. Seriously, do you really think the thousands of scientists doing research on this stuff aren't smart enough to check that their simulations can recreate current conditions? When was the last time you looked at the results for these simulations, 1985?

If you don't believe me, check the IPCC report FAQ, question 8.1. You'll see that the simulations accurately reproduce the global mean temperature rise. (But only if they include the anthropogenic CO2 increase!)

From the FAQ, just to drive the point home:

"Models can also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled with high skill when both human and natural factors that influence climate are included."

Sure, they still can't predict your local weather, but that's a far harder job than global mean temperature. In addition, they do give probability distributions for weather phenomonae. They can't predict exactly what this year's hurricane season will be like, but they can give probabilities.

But paying attention to local weather misses the point - the thesis of AGW is that the global mean temperature rise is due to human-produced greenhouse gasses, and the results of the models agree. Since they can reproduce known phenomena, this agreement is compelling.

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.

This is true (as long as you take out weasel words like "such things" and just stick to "cloud cover") and mentioned in FAQ 8.1 . Nonetheless the uncertainties are included in the models, which are still consistent with AGW.

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 .

To continue in the same Vein, FAQ 2.1 lists CO2, Methane, Halocarbons, NO2, Ozone, Aerosol particles, and yes, water vapor as greenhouse gasses. So yes, your "fellow" scientists are smart enough to keep track of the other gasses, your disinformation to the contrary. As for your second question, I'm not sure about geological evidence, but if you check the same FAQ question you can see that greenhouse gas concentrations started rising significantly starting in the late 19th/early 20th century, about the same time as the temperature increase.

Now, your second post:

"Go back to college and try to learn what you obviously missed, i.e. that science is about skepticism and standards of proof, not about 'consensus'.... I would also suggest reviewing the history of men named (for example) Gallileo, Copernicus, and Pasteur. I seem to recall that they didn't buy into the 'consensus' of their day and were pilloried for it"

Wow, did you really just compare yourself to Gallileo, Copernicus, and Pasteur? Your arrogance knows no bounds. I would say that the scientists who did the research the IPCC gathered compare more favorably to those ancient greats than you, but such comparisons are childish, without merit, and generally a waste of time.

Also, I never said that consensus implied "proof" as you try to insinuate. What consensus does mean is that the majority of scientists in the field happen to think its the best theory to fit the data, and therefore policy makers should give it a fair shake... in contrast to the actions of our current administration. I mention the word consensus so often because you right-wingers try to portray AGW as a scientific controversy, and it's NOT. Obviously, as with all science, debate about the theory and competing theories is still allowed. Misinformation by people who don't know what they're talking about for political purposes is what we hate so much.

Finally, as to your extensive quotes of Dr. Landscheidt, I have only to say that they are wrong and irrelevant. No disrespect to the (late) Dr. Landscheidt, but he was a hack. According to his Wikipedia entry, he was only an amateur climatologist, and, much worse, a renowned astrologer. You'll pardon me if I don't take his work seriously. He might attribute the climate change to Jupiter in ascension.

In addition to having suspect credentials, the guy died in 2004, I don't know when he was last productive, but I highly doubt any useful work he could have possibly done would still be relevant. If you want to continue to push the solar cycles, check the FAQ again, they are mentioned extensively. Yes, once again you bring up a variable ALREADY taken into consideration by the models.

Posted by ac patriot | October 16, 2007 3:02 AM

To Everyone -

I hardly have time to answer everything brought up to me, and I'm tired of posting on this thread, so I'll leave you with something you may not have seen before in non-distorted form: The no-frills argument for why we should take action to reduce global warming from a scientist's perspective:

First, again check out the IPCC reports. They present this argument in a far more detailed, and probably clearer, mistake-free form. Since you probably won't, I'll go ahead and state my case, in a simple, easily accessible form (I don't claim this to be science, just a view):

First, what we know:

-Global mean temperature has risen nearly a degree over the past hundred or so years.

-This temperature rise was accompanied (actually slightly proceeded) by a rise in greenhouse gasses.

-Incredibly complex and accurate computer models, incorporating the important variables (see the FAQ), have shown that this temperature increase is due to the increase in greenhouse gasses, just as any much simpler theory might predict. Increase the thickness of the glass, and the greenhouse gets hotter.

-The same models are able to accurately reproduce the global climate of the 20th century, along with geological phenomena such as past global temperature increases and ice ages.

-The same models predict the temperature to continue to rise for the next century, (albeit with much greater uncertainty), with potentially disastrous consequences, such as greater temperature extremes, greater probabilities of having hurricane years like 2005, potentially rising sea levels, mass extinctions, etc., etc. It could be really bad.

Now, does all that add up to scientific "proof"? Of course not! What it does add up to is a compelling theory, but that's not proof. Unfortunately, the only way to prove it scientifically would be to have several Earths, and run the experiment over and over again until all the uncertainties are minimized! This is clearly impossible. Asking for "proof" is unreasonable, in this case. Instead, you can change your viewpoint:

We are currently undergoing a potentially irreversible experiment to see what happens to the Earth when we dump a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. No one knows what will happen, but currently, according to our best models, it seems to be warming the Earth. These same models predict that the warming will continue for a time, even if we stop dumping greenhouse gases, for you see it takes the Earth a long time to rid itself of the excess gases, and Earth has a very large thermal mass that reacts slowly. However, reducing the greenhouse gas production will at least slow the warming, and hopefully reduce it to more manageable levels.

Unfortunately, this experiment is almost impossible to undo. Is it worth gambling the future of the planet, and your children, on this complex experiment? That's up to you to decide, but you owe it to yourself and the rest of the planet to at least become familiar with the science and its possible implications.

Post a comment