Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

The movie did have a bit of sensationalism to it. But that doens't mean global warming isn't happening or isn't heavily influenced / caused by human activity.


I hear a lot of people (especially pundits) still call Global Warming a pseudo science*. The problem is, not enough people read Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals (if you read them, you'd know why). The review articles looking at climate change over the last decade have all shown about 100% support for human caused global warming.

It's the regular press over the last decade that shows articles support 50/50.

I personally believe the scientists over reporters. I may be biased as a scientist, but when I read some of the "scientific" news articles, I see a woeful lack of true understanding in a lot of them.





* UFOlogy and crystal thearpy are pseudoscience, not the Greenhouse Effect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mormegil @ Oct 14 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]525592[/snapback]</div>

Sorta like all of those articles about the Prius being less green than a Hummer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 13 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]525344[/snapback]</div>

That Al Gore is going to prevent any future resource wars caused by global warming is so incredibly speculative it is barely worthy of comment. This is why the Nobel prizes should be given years after the individual's initial contribution -- so that the magnitude of their contribution can be realistically judged with the benefit of many years of hindsight. By this light standard, nearly anyone could qualify - and I would suggest that anybody from Bono to Bill Gates would be better choices under such a standard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 14 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]525697[/snapback]</div>

And why not? It is one person's opinion after assessing the presentation(s). Kind of like yours.... Just a different conclusion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 14 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]525697[/snapback]</div>

And how long after the individual's initial contribution should the award be given? This isn't about sainthood.

 

I called Gore self-aggrandizing (add arrogant now that I think about it) based on his boastful statements. He once spouted gibberish about humans have an effect of the balance of the Universe. Oh really? I don't know about you, but I barely have an effect on my dog.

"We are," warns Gore, "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...94-7583,00.html

I liked the earlier, calmer pre-Rev. Al Gore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 15 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]525940[/snapback]</div>

Golly, I'm just, shocked, shocked, that amped would like to another Gore-bashing OPINION column. People love misquoting Gore; the full quote is:
We are recklessly dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe, so the buildup of heat energy that should be re-radiated by the Earth is beginning to wilt, melt, dry out, and parch delicate components of the planet's living systems.

 

Again it falls back on practice what you preach, AG Has been caught doing the opposite with his home..

What was that he said ? He CREATED the Internet? Now hes wanting to be the GURU of GW.

It will be intresting to see how things add up in the future, but if things dont change. he would find a way to get the credit for that too... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 16 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]526387[/snapback]</div>

That's been debunked so many times, you need to get with the program. He was involved with the early days of the internet (which was essentially a military/university linkup, if you recall), even Newt Gingrich defended him on this issue. Maybe he didn't phrase it right once, but G.W. Bush has had his share of bad phrasings, I think you'll agree.

Not that I'm a rabid fan of Al Gore. I think his message is important, but because of what the IPCC and thousands of scientists have put together, not because of Al's interpretation and dramatization of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 15 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]525940[/snapback]</div>

Nice of you to be so modest, but you do feed and house your dog, which is a pretty big effect on its life. Not sure about the behavior side.

We killed off the passenger pigeons which once blackened the skies for hours. We did that basically one shot at a time, and by habitat loss. Same thing for the ozone layer, same thing for global warming. Not too hard to believe. I'm involved in prairie restoration in Illinois, we have something less than 1/10th of 1% of the original prairie left in Illinois, the rest has been converted to fields, pastures, roads or housing developments. You can't change 99.9% of the land across a sizable land area and not expect some kind of fallout.

You've seen the pictures of smog over L.A. having an effect on dozens of square miles. That's been helped by clean air regulations, but it doesn't exist in many other countries. Now consider the parts of air pollution you can't see (CO2) that still exist in L.A. and everywhere else we operate vehicles, and how that is being distributed globally. We definitely have increased the global levels of CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases (also including water vapor according to recent reports) that have been proven to increase the amount of warmth captured from the sun. How is it that hard to make the next step of logic, that our increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accounts for at least a good part of the warming of the atmosphere and will continue to do so in the future?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Oct 16 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]526418[/snapback]</div>

You make valid points, but the problem is that they require people to think about them. Rush Limburger et al would rather bloviate than think. Especially if thinking undercuts the 'entertainment' that is going to make them a buck in the process.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 16 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]526287[/snapback]</div>

It is called parsing the quote to put a negative spin on it. Until the selective parsing gets called, the negative impression is there for all to see. And even if the selective parsing gets called, some are going to ignore the truth. That is what is meant by perpetuating a lie, if I am not mistaken.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 16 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]526396[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, Evan, for a dash of sane insight.

I find all this carping about Gore's "poor" example rather peevish - no one carping about Gore's "excess" lifestyle would consider themselves moving to a smaller house, or selling off all their cars, or taking a bus cross-country instead of flying, or selling their boat, or any of a million diminutions of lifestyle that many less well endowed around the world would consider "excessive". It's the old story: the rich are always the people who have more than you do.

Hycamguy, you want to set a good example - sell off that toy Mustang of yours. That piece of personal indulgence is just as "excessive" as some of the "excesses" you carp about Gore indulging. So's hot and cold running water and indoor plumbing, to millions of people.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Oct 16 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]526387[/snapback]</div>

Actually, to set the record straight, I created the Internet.

I am also the Guru of GW™; Gore is only using this phrase under license (and making me rich beyond the dreams of avarice in the process!!)

I also invented the jet engine before Whittle, or that German guy did.

Pantyhose, however, I did NOT invent.

For the betterment of Humanity®
Pinto_Girl

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 16 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]526545[/snapback]</div>

You're right! It's like, people who drive slower than I do are idiots; those who drive faster are crazy.

Or should I say, People who drive slower than I do are idiots; those who drive faster are crazy.®

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Oct 16 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]526287[/snapback]</div>

Allow me to give a link.. The quote in my post was from a Vanity Fair puff piece and a direct Gorebasm, though possibly truncated, it means the same thing: Astounding arrogance...

"We" are melting glaciers. Polar bears are drowning. Great sheets of polar ice threaten to raise sea levels by 20 feet. Species are being exterminated wholesale. Acid seas threaten to dissolve shellfish. And, most grandiosely, "We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6e-5b552dc0d07e

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 18 2007, 01:02 AM) [snapback]527225[/snapback]</div>

Dude, I provided the complete quote from Vanity fair in my post. And it's not "possibly truncated" but "horribly truncated", changed from a 68 word sentence to a 17 word one, chopping out both the middle and the end of the sentence. The full quote isn't at all silly or arrogant, merely a brief encapsulation of science.

Original:
We are recklessly dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe, so the buildup of heat energy that should be re-radiated by the Earth is beginning to wilt, melt, dry out, and parch delicate components of the planet's living systems.
Mangled edit:
We are ... altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe.

You can read the original yourself at:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...6/05/gore200605

 

From a thermodynamics stand point, we ARE changing the balance of energy between the Earth and the rest of the universe.

This isn't some "New Age" version of "Energy" - this is energy as in more electromagnetic energy being trapped as heat energy than re-radiated into space (the rest of the universe).

I see nothing wrong with the truncated statement besides sounding very Hippie, while being scientifically sound.

 

So, if we're to believe the "balance" (whatever that means) between Earth and the Universe is being altered, where and how is it being affected, is it good or bad, and how do you prove it? Wait, let me check my horoscope, I'm sure it's as valid as Gore's "consensus" opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 16 2007, 06:15 PM) [snapback]526628[/snapback]</div>

Thou art Goddess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mormegil @ Oct 14 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]525592[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 14 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]525639[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a problem with journalism today, specifically with regards to global warming, but I think the problem is bigger than that. People are being misled.

The problem is outlined in the following article. Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias
Creating controversy where science finds consensus http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 18 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]527335[/snapback]</div>

Balance means how much of something there is in one place compared to another. You can easily replace "balance" with "ratio."

So looking at a scale, that means how much of one weight there is on one side, compared to how much there is on the other side of the scale.

We're looking at energy. The balance we're looking at is how much energy is trapped on the Earth's surface by the greenhouse effect compared to how much is being radiated into space*

The issue is the balance has changed. A century ago, there was less energy trapped on the Earth's surface than there is today. Conversely, there is less energy being reflected/reradiated out into space (the rest of the Universe) now than a century ago.


How do you measure this? Easy, with a thermometer. Temperature is a measurement of how much energy (in the form of heat) is in a system. Guess what? It's hotter now than it was before.


An indirect measurement would be to look at atmospheric CO2 levels, as we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's gone up too.


As to if it's good or bad, that's debatable based on your point of view. For example, ice ages are good for wooly mammoths, but not so good for me, since I don't like the cold. A drastic change in global climate would be good for some animals and plants, but probably not good for the infastructure that mankind has built based on the current climate. Farming patterns will have to change, sea levels will rise, changing our coastal areas and flooding places like Manhattan. So Global Warming isn't good for my brother as he lives in Manhattan, but might be better for someone who lives inland and will have better access to the beach.


*Greenhouse effect is neccessary for life, too little and we freeze like Mars, too much and we boil like Venus - those are the extremes.