Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]524603[/snapback]</div>

We agree. Everyone should act in a responsible manner when it comes to the environment. It is an important message - my wish is that Al Gore would at least act in a similar vein as he wants others to.

I am responsible for myself - hence my Prius and my two wood burning stoves in my home - I have decreased my natural gas use by over 75% since i put them in not to mention saved thousands of $'s already. I would love to go solar but it is still not there yet for us.... soon i hope.

My other problem is that I dont think that the Nobel Prize for Peace fits here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]524610[/snapback]</div>

I think it is very dangerous to show any movie in schools which contain political overtones of any shape or form. There has been talk of it showing up in schools in this area but so far it has not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 12 2007, 06:59 AM) [snapback]524577[/snapback]</div>

I nominate Steve Wozniak. Or Bill Gates. They changed the world. Heck, even Hitler changed the world, but I don't think he deserves a prize for that.

 

I also tend to disagree with showing that or most any movie in school. Mostly because I think that's lazy of the educators, and almost always questionable in terms of content. In school kids should be active and engaged in learning. That's a different issue entirely though

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 12 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]524616[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. My youngest kid is in Middle School and his music teacher went nuts over President Bush and the Iraq War during class. He was promptly put down - next time - gonso. The schools have a clear set of guidelines for teachers - NO PERSONAL POLITICS in class.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]524634[/snapback]</div>

Would you object to your children being shown "the great global warming swindle" in class? I would object to that movie being shown as well. I think any movie where there is any sort of call to action at the end should be off-limits in school. Now if the two movies were shown to a given class which resulted in a lengthy discussion I might be ok with that. Might.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Oct 12 2007, 08:12 AM) [snapback]524621[/snapback]</div>

A different issue, perhaps. But I find it ironic that the day before winning the Nobel Prize, Gore lost badly in court regarding the scientific accuracy of his prime accomplishment, "An Inconvenient Truth". In my opinion, there is a political undercurrent here to elevate the man, promote his message, and promote his movie, despite some quite significant inaccuracies:

Error one

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near futureâ€.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s â€wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.â€

Error two

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.â€

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor†- the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely†it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four

Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fitâ€.

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore assertsâ€.

Error five

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.

Judge: This “specifically impressed†David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Error six

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.â€

Error seven

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming.

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show thatâ€.

Error eight

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the iceâ€.

Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s descriptionâ€.

Error nine

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 12 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]524639[/snapback]</div>

Case in point if you polled 100 people who had seen "an Inconvenient Truth" in say the first month of realease when Katrinaetc was still fresh in everyones mind and you asked one question: "Does global warming contribute to the frequency and strength of hurricanes? What would at least 75% of them say? Yes. Even though there is absolutley 0 scientific consensus on the topic, there are scientists saying it does, scientists saying it doesn't even scientists saying it would have the opposite effect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]524644[/snapback]</div>

I respect that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]524644[/snapback]</div>

I think it is fine if they show "Swindle" and "AIT" back to back. That would really get kids thinking about what really is the truth and that in life, there is usually not much that is completely absolute.

 

Man you people (you know who you are) never cease to amaze me... :blink:

Put the shoe on another parties foot and you would be right there bashing away... <_<

And even though AG has been proven to be a swindler and confused in his statments and actions, its ok though because hes a liberal democrat...

Im happy for him that he got a NPP, as Dr Berman has stated they will give those out to anyone these days, it seems... But again Congrats AG, for his err, accompishment.

With that said, I think He and all of the pseudo intellects have all of the idiots of the world in a lather because of global climate change. He is right...the climate is changing. It is always changes and is cyclical throughout time. It is changing because of cyclical changes like those of 100s and 1000s of years ago. It's just warmer now that it was 50 years ago. It is not a by-product of "our carbon footprint" and the pollutants in the air and over population. How is it that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth much of today's northern climates were tropical. Did t-rex prodcue so much methane gas through his farts to cause a dramatic climate shift. How is it that ice flowed and covered areas that are now the US south with current temperate or sub tropical climates.

You global warming psuedo scientists need to get a clue and realize that there are forces beyond our control and that not everything is man-made and not every technology is evil.

If Algore cared so much for the environment, why does he still drive gas guzzlers and live in 10,000 s/f homes. If he were the environmentalist you think he is, he should be living in the woods and eating berries and set an example for us evil people that drive SUVs and have the audacity to want to be comfortable and run our a/c.

What's sad is at least 1/2 of you that read this are buying into that BS.

 

To the point at hand, I was rather surprised when I heard this. Generally they wait a decade or two (or three) so they can see the impact that was made in a historical context. Giving the peace prize to work this new is unusual, so it seems to me that they are trying to make a political/environmental point beyond just recognition for work well done.

I'm not particularly a fan of Al Gore and I haven't seen his movie. I prefer to look at the science myself and make my own interpretations. Which aren't too different from Al Gore's, based on what I've heard, so there isn't much reason to go see AIT. I'd rather look at an opposing viewpoint and determine if they have something valid. What seems to be overlooked here, is that Al Gore didn't win this himself, he's a co-winner along with hundreds or thousands that worked in the IPCC. I think they're the real deal, doing the science, and he's their publicist in a way.

 

We have to look at the Fair and Balanced evidence.

Hundreds of professionally trained climatologists say that climate change is real, and that humans are affecting it. On the other hand, some guy who goes by the name of KewlDude has a blog that says it's not real. Who am I to believe?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 07:51 AM) [snapback]524603[/snapback]</div>

+1.

And that is probably the single greatest reason why Al gore will not run for President - doing so will detract from the message he is carrying on the environment. As President, Al Gore would have to focus on a myriad of things in addition to the environment (Iraq is one cesspool that he would have to handle that contributes nothing to the environment....). As Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, he can put all of his energy into something that he demonstrably enjoys. Life is too short to have to put up with the crap from the neocons. Let some other aspiring leader handle that chore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 12 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]524639[/snapback]</div>

It was a partial victory for the people filing the suit (this was in England BTW). It doesn't stop the film from being shown, but requires a warning that other viewpoints exist and some statements may be exaggerated. I haven't seen AIT, but this list of so-called errors seems to be rather badly biased itself.

Perhaps misleading because of the phrase "in the near future". If it does melt, that would happen.

Inundated is a strong word, but beach erosion is happening on many atolls, as well as higher storm surges. I don't know of any evacuations at this time, but islanders are obviously concerned and wondering how much they should put into storm breaks when their whole island is only a few feet above sea level and may require evacuation eventually anyway.

It seems to be already slowing down. It could potentially be shut down for all practical purposes, which would obviously be a big deal to England. It looks like this has happened rather suddenly in the past. The IPCC was deliberately being conservative in their estimates, and received flack for it in some instances, especially for the rate of Greenland glacier melting (there was late-breaking news on that when the report came out), which directly impacts this conveyor belt.

There's a definite correlation. I don't know I'd call it an exact fit, but there's a very strong connection that cannot be denied.

Global climate change is the average global change and hard to pin on specific local events or day-to-day weather. It's likely global warming affected it, but hard to prove. Depending on how Gore phrased it, I could side with the judge.

Same as above.

Same as above. The number of hurricanes per year seems to be increasing as the oceans get warmer, so it is more likely that stronger and more numerous hurricanes will occur as global warming goes along, but to say a particular one happened solely because of global warming is disingenuous.

Polar bears are being stressed because of changes in their environment are more severe than elsewhere, but I don't know about this particular example. Walruses for instance have moved to giving birth on shores rather than ice packs, but this may put them out of range of the good food sources and expose them to new predators.

What's wrong with this? Bleaching because of global warming and other factors sounds to me like what the IPCC said. Coral can't migrate and they're being hit in many cases by more than one stress factor, so they are bleaching. This is happening and well-documented. Again the IPCC is being conservative because they are scientists and won't claim something has actually happened unless they have complete proof. If there's still a 10% chance of another factor causing it, then they use words like "very likely".

 

Well at least Algore didn't go to the U.N. strapped just before winning his NPP!


A link to the Guardian article regarding the inconvenient truths: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...=rss&feed=8

or really inconvenient conclusions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 12 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]524646[/snapback]</div>

The only difference is that "Swindle" does not represent the scientific consensus but "AIT" does. By definition in science class you can only teach the current scientific consensus not what Kewldud's blog says.