« Blackout | Main | The Problem With the Edwards Estate »

Al Gore May Win the Nobel Peace Prize

First Jimmy Carter. Now possibly Al Gore.

Former US vice president Al Gore is seen as a possible winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to save the planet from global warming, the head of the Oslo Peace Research Institute has said.


"The issue of global warming is also very topical and ... it wouldn't be impossible for the Nobel committee to honour a person combatting this threat. In such case, Al Gore ... seems to me to be a possible candidate," the institute's head, Stein Toennesson told AFP Thursday.

Emails, faxes and letters have been flowing in to the Nobel Institute in Oslo ahead of the February 1 deadline for nominations, with Finnish peace broker Martti Ahtisaari and Chinese dissident Rebiya Kadeer also tipped as possible laureates.

Two Norwegian members of parliament have nominated Al Gore jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian who represents more than 150,000 fellow Inuits in the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and who has campaigned to draw attention to climate change in the Arctic.

The former US vice president is currently criss-crossing the globe with his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", a hard-hitting rallying cry against global environmental catastrophe.

"This is clearly some of the most import conflict prevention work that is being done. Climate change could lead to enormous waves of refugees, the likes of which the world has never seen before," Heidi Soerensen, a Socialist Left MP who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier, told daily Aftenposten on Thursday.

"One hundred million climate refugees, major changes in drinking water supplies and a reduction in biological diversity ... will rapidly become a major security threat," co-nominator Boerge Brende, of the Conservative party, told the paper.

Toennesson said the Nobel committee might choose to honour the fight against climate change.

To the Nobel committee: if you really want to make a statement, how about choosing to honor the fight against Islamofascism.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Al Gore May Win the Nobel Peace Prize:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Miller testifies against Scooter Libby

Comments (124)

Well, it became meaningless... (Below threshold)

Well, it became meaningless when they gave it to Kissinger and the North Vietnamese envoy for the "Paris Peace Accords" which led to the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more.

It became a joke when they gave one to Arafat.

Why not Gore?

Of course, if there are really going to be "One hundred million climate refugees ..." they should give it to John Edwards, 'cause he could put them up in his new house.

How do I nominate myself fo... (Below threshold)
r:

How do I nominate myself for the award? I consume less fossil fuel than AlGore, and I'm confident that I give more to charity than he does. And since he's such a climate expert, shouldn't he be nominated for the Nobel in physics or chemistry?

Here's my take on Al Gore:<... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Here's my take on Al Gore:

He's working to fight global warming because he (and nearly all climatologists) have concluded that it IS happening, may cause hardship and death, and that the damage can be mitigated.

Do any of you believe this is a plan to become president?! Pretty roundabout way of running, dontcha think?

Maybe you think he's wrong; that global warming is nonsense. But YOU are wrong if you think that Gore is dedicating his life to promoting a "hoax".

Furthermore, look at him today vs. when he was in politics----when does he look happier? Certainly not as Senator or VP. I think he felt pressure to go into politics because of his family history; I think NOW he has finally found what he truly wants to do with his life.

Publik - what Algore wants ... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

Publik - what Algore wants more than anything is to be President of the US - make no mistake about that. And yes, he would promote a hoax to do that - that's what the lib-dem-socialists do all the time - what's new? Watch the reaction in the MSM after Algore's speech when he wins the Emmy for his witless movie - they'll be calling him the New Comeback Kid and he'll be on his way. And then the Nobel prize just a month before the first primary? Jeez! His only problem is the Clintonistas will take action to destroy him.

Kim - I dont think the Swedes have yet recognized that there is a war against Islamo-fascism - no awards going there!

gc

Well, if trotting the globe... (Below threshold)
dhammett:

Well, if trotting the globe promoting the global warming myth makes him happy (here's a link to a Drudge story) I think we can all be happy for him. After all, without his inventing the internet, all this blogging wouldn't be possible. He's happy, I'm happy, we're all happy.

Hey Jim,you left C... (Below threshold)
Yo:

Hey Jim,

you left Carter off your list. Your point is still valid without him (stronger with, though).

Peace Prize ... phpt.


My thoughts and feelings regarding Gore aside, championing global warming awareness, while not a bad thing, is not nearly as peace inducing as, let's say, a woman working against a repressive regime or a man working for freedom in Africa.

Having said that, Gore will more than likely be smiling in Oslo in the not too distant future.

That, plus his impending Oscar, will put a shiver down the spines of Obama and Hillary (and that of Edwards ..., if he had one).

Should be interesting if not utterly entertaining.

.. my bad. Kim listed Cart... (Below threshold)
yo:

.. my bad. Kim listed Carter, already. Sorry 'bout that Jim.

That's just dynamite!</b... (Below threshold)
SicSemperTyrannus:

That's just dynamite!

Years ago, I saw Al Gore ta... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Years ago, I saw Al Gore talking about his book "Earth in the Balance"; he was relaxed and happy.

Two weeks later, he was picked by Clinton to be his VP. He looked stiff and not nearly as happy.

BTW -- there are not presidential primaries in Oslo.

dhammett--You're c... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

dhammett--

You're citing DRUDGE as a source?!

LOL!

GeminiChuck" wh... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

GeminiChuck

" what Algore wants..."

This just represents what a mindless Rushppupet you are, thinking this so clever.

You appear to be one of the Wizpuppies lapping Limbarf whenever Rush rings the bell.

You probably never had an original thought of your own. Your daily survival depends on a daily diet of RWB propagandistic BS.

BTW --Since those ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

BTW --

Since those of you who get your "news" from the Drudge Report don't know this:

Fred Singer, who co-authored this new book "debunking" global warming is one of a handful of "scientists" for hire; he also has helped Philip Morris "debunk" the alleged dangers of smoking.

Of course, the vast majority of actual scientists who study climate have concluded that global warming is real, significant, and man-made.

dhammett"After ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

dhammett

"After all, without his inventing the internet,"

You're showing what an extremely weak mind you have or what a snivelin liar that you are, repeating the above looney right propaganda that never occured.

Just typical of so many of the righties; gobble up lies and regurgitate RWB lies on cue because you lack anything of foundation to say.

This just represents wha... (Below threshold)
Clay:

This just represents what a mindless Rushppupet you are, thinking this so clever.

Yeah, kinda like your malkin/slattern pun? You libs are such effin' hypocrites. Oh hell, and then your clever little leftist play on Limbaugh, too? Does your mom know know you're playing on the computer?

"During my service in the U... (Below threshold)
Clay:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." --Al Gore; March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Now, we can have a discussion about the definition of 'create'. But, the above quote is documented.

The Inuit people with Sheil... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

The Inuit people with Sheila Watt Cloutier as one of their representatives would have no idea of the changes in "global" mean temperature right? Their everyday existence is tied to the movements of animals and water and snow pack and things that indigenous people who have relied on the land to provide them with food and shelter and warmth, exactly what would they know?


They would be the last people who could have anything relevant to say about the hardships occuring to their way of life having been tied to such an unpredictable earth bound living. I mean what could they contribute to telling the rest of us technological, statistical acolytes that we don't already have an answer for?

Seriously, what use is MOTHER NATURE when we have the DECIDER IN CHIEF. The one and the only decider who stole an election from a man being considered for a PEACE prize.

Foolish Americanos........get more stupid and lazy by the day....a pathetic lot

I am constantly amused at t... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

I am constantly amused at the obsession here with all things Gore, Kerry, Carter, etc.

Isn't anyone going to champion our great Dear Leader and his brilliant plans for the 21st century?

How about that mission to Mars? Social Security reform anyone?

Aren't there some freshly painted schools in Iraq somewhere that the terrible MSM ignored?

ClayFor a discussi... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Clay

For a discussion about Gore's "create' see this.

Gore was boastful about promoting the development when he used the word "create" but there is some substance to what he claimed in his Congressional career.

That the quote was changed to "invented" is a reflection of the Republican smear machine which people like dhammett repeat, reflecting how they suck the Republican propaganda tit.

As far as Al Gore taking "t... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

As far as Al Gore taking "the initiative in creating the internet", Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn (who were two of the people credited with developing the internet) support Gore's claim: he took the initiative in Washington to support the development of the internet.

Gore never claimed to have invented or created the Internet. That is a (popular) lie...or (more charitably) honest mistake.

Publicus,The scien... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

The science of Global Warming is not settled as Al and many like him portray. Take a look at the following links and let me know what you think.

Claude Allegre is one of the most decorated French geophysicists, and a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences. Allegre authored more than 100 scientific articles in the past that support many of Al Gore's positions, but as the science comes in, he has changed his opinion. Here's a translated version of and editorial he wrote.

Next we have sixty scientists calling on Prime Minister Harper to revisit the science of global warming.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory, warns of global cooling starting in 2012. His warning is based on a new understanding of how the sun's magnetic field affects Earth's climate.

I've got lots more links to real scientists who don't agree with Al, but that should be enough to demonstrate the science of Global Warming is not settled, not in degree, not in cause, not even in direction (cooling vs. warming). If Khabibullo is right, then we need more CO2 to offset the cooling effect.

Global Warming is all about... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

Global Warming is all about controlling human behvaior.

If it were about reducing CO2 emissions, we'd be hearing a lot more from people like these guys:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf

"Three participants said th... (Below threshold)
jab:

"Three participants said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans."

I think it means,

" We lack concrete evidence for this, but we're saying it anyway, with a 10% hedge."

Aren't there some freshly p... (Below threshold)
karen:

Aren't there some freshly painted schools in Iraq somewhere that the terrible MSM ignored?

Did they let school out early today?

Mac Lorry --I cert... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry --

I certainly hope that Claude Allegre and all are correct. Regarding Fred Singer...his training is in physics. I don't put to much credence in what he or what, say, Carl Sagan had to say about global warming. (I, of course, respect Sagan in his area of expertise, astronomy.)

There are a lot of scientists in the world, and finding sixty that disagree with the majority of experts on climate isn't surprising. We could also find 60 religious scientists who believe the world is 6,000. And perhaps Noah's flood.

I weight the expertise of the vast majority of scientists with expertise on the actual subject most heavily.

I might note: I would not be completely surprised if global warming proves less severe than feared; I think that the climate is extraordinarily complex to predict. (actually, just about everything is!)

Nonetheless, it is absolutely clear to me that the best and most credible information we have is that global warming is real, man-made, and has serious consequences for human beings.

That said, I'm certainly open to Singer's argument: he claims that the CO2 buildup occurred largely before 1940 and was therefore natural and not man-made. I haven't heard the response to this argument...and would like to.

aRepukelican:dh... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican:

dhammett

"After all, without his inventing the internet,"

You're showing what an extremely weak mind you have or what a snivelin liar that you are, repeating the above looney right propaganda that never occured.

Just typical of so many of the righties; gobble up lies and regurgitate RWB lies on cue because you lack anything of foundation to say.

Posted by: aRepukelican at February 1, 2007 02:59 PM


Lies? What about this?

Al Gore to Blitzer; "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

LoganDon't try using... (Below threshold)
karen:

Logan
Don't try using logic with a lib. It's just not in their capacity to think logically. You're wasting your time.

aRepukelican - ok, I admit ... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

aRepukelican - ok, I admit - I learned to say "algore" from Rush - nice ring to it, dont you think? But the rest of your analysis is pure hogwash. I learned conservatism from the master of modern conservatism, William Buckley and from Barry Goldwater's book on conservatism back in the early 60's. One doesnt have to listen to Rush to recognize what you commie-pinko-socialist-libs are trying to do to our great country. You're all alike - cant provide facts for discussions - can only do name calling. Just like the leaders you elect that take the approach to destroy anyone who disagrees with them rather then trying to disprove opinions and beliefs. Get a life.

gc

Yo Puke,You are su... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Yo Puke,

You are such a troll. Logan busted you big time. Go crawl back under HiLIARy's skirt. You lie as much as AlGore. Both of you are pathetic. I actually have a tinge of sympathy for your pathetic existence as a self loathing communist loser.

Nahhh, not really.

After 6 years of effort, th... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

After 6 years of effort, that has "resulted in real results" to have Al Gore on the list and leaving our President off...is..well..like saying(undisputed)that more Americans..voted for Bush in 2000 than Gore...
Remember we are a Republic...not a Democracy...

Our President, with of course your support, has made the world safer...but we won't hear that through the MSM

If you want to make it a pl... (Below threshold)

If you want to make it a play of words about what Gore meant:

Create:
to bring into existence

Invent:
1.) to devise by thinking 2.) to produce for the first time

So if he 'created' it instead of 'inventing' it, he claims the same thing.

Thanks for playing. . .

"you commie-pinko-socialist... (Below threshold)
Rob:

"you commie-pinko-socialist-libs are trying to do to our great country. You're all alike - cant provide facts for discussions - can only do name calling."

This is my favorite line of any post so far this week. I guess the Barry Goldwater book didn't teach you what irony is.

hmmm...lets see...which exa... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

hmmm...lets see...which exaggeration has had a greater impact.
Gore and his internet claim in 1999...
or http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

On this global warming thin... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

On this global warming thing: How does Al and the rest of the socialist loonies explain the same percentage of warming on the other planets in this solar system? Are the Martians and Venesiuns driving too many SUV's?

I love watching the great c... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

I love watching the great conservative meltdown. If you can even call this line of thinking conservative.

I remember the old school conservatives too. They would have been outraged about Iraq, and especially sending not enough troops ill equipped without a mission plan. They used to care about the military. They also would have been outraged at the failures of intelligence leading up to the war, but good ol Pat Roberts was Cheneys little stooge on the Intel Cmte who did absolutely nothing to investigate the greatest intelligence blunder of our time. Classic.

They would have been outraged that the number of earmarks to spending bills in a Republican controlled congress( or should I say, formerly Republican controlled) quadrupled in five years. I thought republicans were all about fiscal prudence and responsibility. Nope, they let the lobbyists run wild and didn't even give a shit, as they all fed at the trough. Anyone want to still defend Tom Delay here?

Most conservatives today cashed in all those principals long ago, for bragging rights. "We won, you didn't nyaah nyahh nyahh!" They didn't even have the wisdom to understand that American politics is a cycle, and you don't always rule the roost.

And now that the GOP is in danger of becoming a marginalized regional party, fractured and disorganzied, the suicide parties have begun.

I knew the right would burst a capillary in their collective heads once they lost in Nov but I had no idea the amount of hysteria would be like this.

No conservative can champion Bush anymore, or any of his failed policies. It's all blame the other guy now.

It is great fun to watch.

And it's even better knowing that Santorum, Delay, Frist, Hastert, are all history.

Say what you want about alg... (Below threshold)

Say what you want about algore but by October he will have won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar and he will be primed to enter the race for the Presidency. He has done a good job the last 6 years of improving his public image and countering the perception that he is stiff and cold. He is well-known to the American people, had a long career in the Senate, and served as VP for 8 years. No one in the race has a resume even close to his.

And he will be the only candidate in the race who has won a majority of the votes in a prior race for the office of President. In fact, he won a majority of the votes in 3 successive Presidential elections (twice as VP).

This time I think he'll seal the deal by winning the electoral college as well.

Of course, the vast majo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Of course, the vast majority of actual scientists who study climate have concluded that global warming is real, significant, and man-made.

Too bad they don't have the scientific proof to back up their claims.

Regarding Fred Singer...his training is in physics. I don't put to much credence in what he or what, say, Carl Sagan had to say about global warming. (I, of course, respect Sagan in his area of expertise, astronomy.)

And what is Al Gore's expertise? Oh that's right, he majored in English, then switched and received a degree in Government and later took Religious studies and entered law school but didn't graduate.

Nonetheless, it is absolutely clear to me that the best and most credible information we have is that global warming is real, man-made, and has serious consequences for human beings.

No one can say with any sort of scientific evidence that the warming is largely a result of man-made endeavors. There is also nothing out there to suggest that changes, as suggested by the Global Warming alarmists, are guaranteed to stop the warming the Earth is experiencing.

I can't wait to read the summary of the IPCC's report tomorrow. I'm sure it will be a most harrowing tale. Of course, the data to back up their claims won't come out until May, after the group has had a chance to "review" it.

Hey nik... "How does Al and... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Hey nik... "How does Al and the rest of the socialist loonies explain the same percentage of warming on the other planets in this solar system? Are the Martians and Venesiuns etc...etc.."

how about a link? Remember our govt still allows books sold at the Grand Canyon that say the the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old and connected to Noah's Ark...??? if ya want a link to this B.S. I will provide....upon request...

Thank you for your post...C'mon..others here.. don't I seem rational compared to this?

I would hope we could agree... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I would hope we could agree that Clinton is the first person with power to abuse it for their power to "get a little on the side."... However,;...
Anyone who equates a lie involving a BJ from someone who they are married to with a President who...was simply "authorized" by Congress to Invade...and did so Because...having a BJ from a mistress is worse than the death and maiming of brave Americans...
Yeah...I'm pissed...but I am not angry...
'cause in our nation..our President serves us...and we do not serve the President....
...unless their are those who believe our President is a king...

U seem as rational as Alber... (Below threshold)
914:

U seem as rational as Albert the dud Gore does!

In other words an empty suit!

nogo... I think you're refe... (Below threshold)

nogo... I think you're referring to this subject... and it confirms what i've suspected all along... that you're talking out of your ass as usual... the book is sold there... but it is not endorsed by anyone in the park service... and the raving idiots who said that the park service has been ordered to not contradict the book are just making up crap as usual...

So are you calling for the book to be censored... are you so afraid that its obvious nonsense can't be adequately smacked down... that it's so dangerous... that it needs to be smacked down with the full power of the government...

I thought you were the ones accusing the bush administration of censoring... and here you are... demanding that they censor something... just because you disagree with it...

The best censorship is to just point and laugh... that's one of the reasons you haven't been banned... although your rampant abuse of ellipses has me ready to notify the ASPCPM... that's the american society for the prevention of cruelty to punctuation marks...

J.

Compared to petGoat, perhap... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Compared to petGoat, perhaps, but you really do need to broaden your mind a bit. There are thousands such articles out there, but try this
lifetechnology.org/blog/2006/11/global-warming-affecting-other-plants.html

Those of us with some astonomy background realize that the sun controls our weather more than any thing else. Despite what lame brain Al and some other international socialists cram down your throat.

Damn, it's like ringing a b... (Below threshold)

Damn, it's like ringing a bell...mention Gore and lookit 'em all come running to defend Papa Al!

C'mon, he probably deserves it, after all he's already pre-saved 100 million "climate refugees"! If that doesn't deserve a pre-Peace Prize then nothing does!

Will he run for President with a Peace Prize around his neck?

Everybody runs...

If Gore was REALLY concerne... (Below threshold)

If Gore was REALLY concerned about global warming, I think he would be in China, but most of us know he's after the money. When people are afraid of something, they'll front money to feel safer. Always but always follow the money.

"The increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2030 in China alone will nearly equal the increase in the entire industrialized world."
--International Energy Agency

Source

Further proof that the Nobe... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

Further proof that the Nobel Peace Prize is a political tool, and not a recognition of contribution to society or actions to end a war or genocide.

Arthur Nobel is turning in his grave.

If Gore was REALL... (Below threshold)
Langtry:
If Gore was REALLY concerned about global warming, I think he would be in China, but most of us know he's after the money. When people are afraid of something, they'll front money to feel safer. Always but always follow the money.
Well said, Logan. The other side of the 'always follow the money' coin is that it is always, always easier to advocate for something than to actually have to do something to bring it about. It's the guiding principle of today's Dems, and it's obvious who their Patron Saint is.
So what's supposed to be th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

So what's supposed to be the NORMAL temperature?

3:45 PM in Los Angles on May 3rd, 1952? 2 AM on January 4th in Billings, Montana in 1918?

We've got a mayfly's view - a few hours on a sunny afternoon, and we're trying to extrapolate what the temperature should be from that. We simply don't know enough to know what the long-term cycles are.

And as Nikkolai said, the sun's output trumps all else. Cause I'm DAMN sure that what we're putting in our atmosphere isn't causing Martian or Pluto warming... though I ain't sure about Uranus!

[email protected] Tea!I was ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

[email protected] Tea!

I was all set with my post to nogo about his abuse of ellipses (a punctuation pet peeve of mine), then I hit "preview" and saw your ASPCPM comment. LOL. Brilliant!

I half wondered if nogo was a distant relative of the late SF Chronicle columnist and "three-dot journalism" guru, Herb Caen. Then again, at least old Herb followed the AP Style Guide when it came to ellipses. ...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_logic:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thank you for your post.... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Thank you for your post...C'mon..others here.. don't I seem rational compared to this?

Oh...You're such a kidder...LOL...

Publicus,It's not ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

It's not just the sixty scientists who wrote an open letter to the Canadian PM, there are hundreds of climatologists and scientists in related fields doing real science and they are increasingly finding real world observations don't match the computer models, which are the main focus of climate alarmists.

Here's a site with links to dozens of articles citing evidence against the Al Gore climate model. Many of these articles are by prominent sciences.

By the way, if the link between Earth's climate and the sun's magnetic field can be solidly established, then climatologists are in the wrong field to be projecting our future climate.

In April, 1975, in an issue... (Below threshold)
Clay:

In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

I see a pattern here. Arafa... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I see a pattern here. Arafat-Jew killer, Dimmy Carter--Jew hater, assisting Islam to kill Jews--Slick and Al sold missile guidence system to China, now in Hands of Iran--will be used to kill Jews.

If you're a known Jew hater and killer you are automatically qualitied for a Nobel non-peace prize.

If you Faux News dittoheads... (Below threshold)

If you Faux News dittoheads stopped listening to Rush Pillpopper and got an education, you'd know that any tenured professor in the world can nominate whomever they want for a Nobel prize, as long as that person has a deep disdain for America and Western Civilization in general. So it's a great honor that out of the thousands of elligible liberal democrats out there, someone picked Al.

Publicus,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Publicus,

Regarding Fred Singer...his training is in physics. I don't put to much credence in what he or what, say, Carl Sagan had to say about global warming

But the opinion of a politician with a Bachelor of Arts degree (government) and incomplete passes at religious studies and law degrees, that justifies credibility?

Seriously, Al Gore vs genius level hard science guys... I'll take the physicist.

Maybe they should give it t... (Below threshold)

Maybe they should give it to 'You' just like Time Magazine...

Yeah that's the ticket.

All algore has to do is los... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

All algore has to do is lose 50-75 lbs, just like his wife cow-tipper, and he'll stop sweating.

The weatherman can barely forceast the weekend weather correctly on Thursday night, and a handful of fools claim global warming, and look for govt grants buy into global warming?

How many of the global warming nutcases are walking or riding a bike, NOT flying their private airplanes, and have discarded their SUVs, and all homes other than their primary one??

Guess the global cooling grants from the 70's ran out?

there is another issue that... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

there is another issue that no one has mentioned yet.

The whole "global warming" scare is based on an assumption that there will be some type of positive feedback mechanism that will cause the rate of change to increase and get out of control (somewhere back in their minds, they want you to believe the earth will become like Venus). Why is this important? Based on history, it would be foolish to assume that the climate will be the same on Earth in 100 years, or in 500 or in 1000 - climate just doesn't work that way. Humans, animals, plants survive by adjusting to the climate. Heck, who knows - at some point we may survive by adjusting the climate. If we were to all go back to the stone age (that is what's being advocated, right?!?), then I think our ability to survive would definetly suffer - and isn't that really what's important after all?

Would it be such a tradgedy if ocean level raised by 20 feet or even 200 feet in 1000 years? (I'm not even sure the worst predictions are even close to this dire). Almost nothing that we build today will be around in 1000 years anyway, will it? - civilization will be totally different regardless of what happens. Some coastlines and islands will disappear - and volcanic activity will create new ones - its been happening since the dawn of time - why would it stop now?

The planet will change... that is a 100% guarantee... civilization will change...that too is guaranteed. Why do we expect things to remain the same?

For global warming science,... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

For global warming science, I'm going to stick with the peer-reviewed materials by people who are actually in the field.

And I'll leave the right wing ideologues to their own favorite beliefs.

BTW - unlike Fred Singer...a physicist who's trying to pass off his studies as valid climate science, Al Gore is reporting on the actual studies by real scientists, and what they've found about global warming.

Yep, real scientists working in their area of expertise, doing peer-reviewed studies CAN be wrong...but it's the best we've got.

You guys can play all the gotcha games with words...but whatever happpens with the environment will happen and your beliefs (unsupported) won't effect it either way...

Just as a lark at his next ... (Below threshold)
RScott:

Just as a lark at his next speaking engagement someone should shout: Gore! Klaatu Virada Nikto. Probably won't help, but it may be worth a try.

The Mann study, upon which ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

The Mann study, upon which most of the climate are based has been debunked along with the "hockey stick" temperature myth. While there is little debate on whether the globe is warming there is real debate on whether man is the cause.

No model has ever accurately predicted the climate or weather patterns over 100 years. Ever. When they've taken their precious models and input data up to 1950 years ago none of them agree on the climate in 2000. Some have had Denver a desert and others with the ice caps melted.

Global Warming has everything to do with manipulating fear and diverting money to promote anti-corporate and solcialist agendas. It has nothing to do with science.

I just read that Fatty Pill... (Below threshold)

I just read that Fatty Pillpopper got nominated, too. Obviously, the Nobel Prize committee has been bougt off.

Pub--you may want to check ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Pub--you may want to check with the links provided above--there are many, many scientific voices all over the map on this. Not just the pin-headed socialistic global warming alarmists. The smartest opinions, IMHO, all point to the solar connection to global warming, on this, and all other planets in the solar system.

Even if he wins the Nobel P... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Even if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, he'll still lose Tennessee.

nikkolai --I don't... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

nikkolai --

I don't think your opinion is humble enough; you'll need to show me the peer review studies that "debunk" global warming and have greater support than the vast majority of reports by actual climate scientists.

The Mann study, up... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The Mann study, upon which most of the climate are based has been debunked along with the "hockey stick" temperature myth.

False. But I'm too exhausted to look up the citation. You'll have to look up an actual source for yourself...if you're actually interested. Hint: The Drudge Report is NOT a source...

Global Warming has... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
Global Warming has everything to do with manipulating fear

Let's think about this one: who are the big experts at manipulating fear?

Hmmm...

ah Faith+1...I will not pre... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ah Faith+1...I will not presume to second guess what scientific sources you use to reach your conclusion..but I will say...just as evolution can be supported by the "scientific method" and we all learned what that was in school...the overwhelming evidence on-line clearly demonstrates that "global warming" due to our "exhaust" is having significant implications....
...as for the Peace prize?
Until there is an escalation of non-violence..no one deserves it...
It should be noted that the number of responses on this thread, in and of itself..shows we are at least thinking about it...

Pub,Tell you what.... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Pub,

Tell you what. Point me to the climate model and experiment that proves man is causing the Earth to warm more than any other component and then show me the independent researcher that can reproduce that result. Until then, all your peer reviewed articles are as much as a source to rely on as the ones listed above.

Like I said above, why is the IPCC summary for policy makers coming out before the rest of the data. It wouldn't be to "fudge" the data (or whitewash contradictory data) to match the desired policy change would it?

Just wondering...who would ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Just wondering...who would folks nominate for the "Peace Prize" and...WHY?...or is there agreement that in our current circumstances...
No One Deserves it?

hmmm - >5 minutes of online... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

hmmm - >5 minutes of online research yielded some interesting results - I will post a link, thank you very much. Imagine what a few hours might yield?

USToday had an article back in '03 saying that the "hockey stick" research was flawed. The review was McKitrick (SP?) and has partner had a name that was spelled similarly, but I'm too lazy to post it right now.

Anyway, McKitrick maintains a clearing house of Global-warming Skeptical links. You still know what being skeptical is, right?

In case you don't, being skeptical would entail at least taking a look at what these sources say, right? Not being skeptical would be essentially treating Global warming as a religious belief... the choice is yours.

Here's your link:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

For global warming science, I'm going to stick with the peer-reviewed materials by people who are actually in the field.

Apparently you don't release there's lots of peer-reviewed science that doesn't agree with the climate alarmists' position. There's lots of editorials that cite many such peer-reviewed studies at CO2 science. Just look through their previous issues if you dare. You might find your own beliefs are the ones that are unsupported.

GeminiChuckSo you ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

GeminiChuck

So you cite Goldwater & Buckley. I was raised in a right-wing extremist household where I couldn't watch I Love Lucy because Lucille Ball was a commie.

I was a Goldwater delegate at a campus mock political convention in '64 & parlayed summer campaign work for AuH20 into an appointment to the Ohio State Senate as a page. I know Buckley & I know conservatism very well.

Goldwater would never have tolerated Bush nor any of his policies. Buckley has renounced the Iraqi war. So where do you get off on these matters? As it is, John Dean who grew up & was influenced heavily by Goldwater & classic conservatism thinks Bush should be impeached & thinks the Bush regime is "worse than Watergate."

If you believe half the crap you commented on, you are no follower of Barry Goldwater. You are a Goldwater heretic and, as the way you presented yourself, haven't the most basic understanding of "Conscience of a Conservative." Goldwater would not even recognize you.

Sorry GC, bit you blaspheme Goldwater when you claim to have learned from him what you claim to have learned.

Wherever what you call conservatism comes from, you can be sure Goldwater would not recognize it in an eternity.

Money is the republicans go... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Money is the republicans god. Mother Earth means SH** to them.

No one including Al Gore who has been repeating the message of scientists (operative word here is he is repeating the scientists tome) can know exactly what is happening with global climate change but not one of you can provide me with ONE study that shows the glonbal mean temperature is lower than it was fifty years ago. All I ask is one. Just one.

What is noteworthy is that as global mean temperatures have experienced a net inrease over the 20th century the rate itself has been increasing. When scientists try to reproduce this trend in their climate modeling they can only replicate the rise when including anthropogenic forcings in addition to natural causes. The rate of change is disturbing and caused by human contributions.

Ask the landsman or the Inuit. Ask people who ahve lived off the land for centuries how global warming is affecting climate change. Or don't and continue to be part of the problem. It's up to you.

first of all...is there any... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

first of all...is there any clarification that Al Gore is under consideration...is there ANYTHING that can demonstrate that he has been nominated?
Without this...we can all have /and express an opinion..and i know facts are frowned upon...but can we agree that any discussion on this has nothing to do with Al Gore being officially nominated...until it happens?

Mac Lorry --I WILL... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry --

I WILL review the source you cite. I am open-minded. I must confess that the right has such a dismal record (in my mind) on science that, without a really solid citation (Drudge won't do!), I really don't give them much credence.

I truly appreciate the link...looks dense, so don't expect me to wade through it all so quickly...

And I also WON'T judge anyone's reports by who's paying them. I'm really trying to be fair and understand...

By the rabid frothing of th... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

By the rabid frothing of the Liberals, I can tell that someone's committed heresy against Man Made Global Warming.

For all that are claiming 'all scientist agree' that global warming exists and is man made, I suggest that Dr. Richard Lindzen was missed when the polls was done. However, he's only a professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

The following is worth reading for the nonbelievers (and any believe that dare question High Priest Gore).

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
by Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

And excerpts from a presentation by Dr. Lindzen
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15893

civil behavior,The... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

civil behavior,

The problem with climate modeling is that no one can model what they don't understand. The climate may in fact be getting warmer, but it has gone through two complete warming and cooling cycles since Roman times, all without man made CO2. Obviously, something other than man made CO2 must be the cause.

Turns out the cycles closely match a combined solar cycle, but until recently no one had a clue how small changes in solar activity could have much larger changes on the Earth's climate. Now there is a theory that shows how the sun's magnetic field can have such an effect.

If the solar link is proven than it means the sun is the major factor in global warming, and we are due to start another cooling cycle in 2012. Man made CO2 may be beneficial in minimizing that cooling, and trying to reduce it is the opposite thing we should be doing.

The important thing is to keep the scientific process going, for both sides of the argument. I oppose anyone on either side of the question who's trying to stifle research and debate. Can we at least agree on that?

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

I'm really trying to be fair and understand...

And that's why I like to address comments to you. Nothing opens and person's mind like another person's open mind.

Al Gore didn't mean to impl... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Al Gore didn't mean to imply he created the internet? Really?

Are we talking about the same Al Gore who
claimed he discovered the Love Canal?

The same Al Gore who said the Oliver Barrett character in Love Story was based on him? Then Erich Segal said "WTF?" and then later relented and said that was true, I guess after Al gave him a irritating phone call.

The same Al Gore who said he got a bunch of people jailed as a result of his stint as a journalist at a Tennessee newspaper, which turned out to be totally false?

The same Al Gore who said his mama sang him the Union Label song while she rocked him to sleep? The song that didn't come out till Al was in his 20s?

LOL.

Yep. That Al Gore. HE's got one vivid imagination, let me tell you.

One needs a vivid imaginati... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

One needs a vivid imagination if you sleep with a woman who has the body of rosie odonuts, and is named tipper.

As for Lindzen, try again w... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

As for Lindzen, try again with another more credible scientist who isn't being supported by the coal or oil indusry. His rhetoric just won't fly since special interests whose very existence depend on shills like him. Sorry, not acceptable.

The "Mediaval Warming" myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends.

Disturbingly, deniers underestimate both the extent of the self-reinforcing cycles that are causing temperatures to rise and the vulnerability of the planet.

Do you really need a scientist to tell you that spewing crap all over the earth is bad?? and will have a bad effect even if that bad effect has yet to be determined?

Bush sold our soul for Saudi oil. It will take a Visionary like Al Gore to ransom it back. Go Al, you deserve much more than the Nobel Prize for trying so hard to wake people to their own filth.

Please take time out from t... (Below threshold)

Please take time out from the Al Gore love/hate fest and read this link.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027977.shtml

Surprised no one has linked... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Surprised no one has linked global warming with big oil profits.

Sorry,Here's the fre... (Below threshold)
See a tongue-in-cheek visua... (Below threshold)

See a tongue-in-cheek visual recounting Al Gore's recent successes and the possibility of a more "lofty" goal...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Gore/Clinton in '08?... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Gore/Clinton in '08?

Personally, I think somebod... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Personally, I think somebody lecturing me on global warming should not waste more resources in an hour than I do in a year.

Al, I do not fly. Own only one home. Have a car that is not a gas-guzzler.

Are you telling me to try and live MORE like you?

No.

What Al wants --- as far too many leftists want --- is for YOU to change while he does not have to change at all. He wants to continue living HIS life while you make all of the sacrifices.
-=Mike

Jaku: I think you mistake t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Jaku: I think you mistake the fun we are having with the dhimmi's and their daily disasters for something else. There has never been a better time to be a conservative. The economy is booming and the liberals have their eyes and ears covered to avoid the truth. A treasure trove of idiots have crawled from under their rocks to run for president. Right off we have racist and sexist remarks from them and some of the remarks are directed at a man that is not a black american but an Islamic terrorists. Good luck with your hero when he sends someone to mutilate your wife or daughter and forbids them from leaving the house alone or getting an education. I'm old and won't be around but you suckers are going to suffer untold pain for your stupidity.

Global Warming is a neo-mar... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Global Warming is a neo-marxist tool. First its to make the successful capitalistic West guilty for their progress. Something they can't match. It also, via Kyoto, shifts industry to China where the sky's the limit on pollution.

Al baby sold one whole side... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Al baby sold one whole side of a mountain here in Tenn. to strip miners to mine zinc. We here in Tenn. disowned that tub of lard long ago. Old hug a tree could not even carry his own state-don't believe I would bitch about not getting elected if that occured to me.

if you had been followin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

Ah, more right-wing perpetuation of a myth.

Here's a translated vers... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Here's a translated version of and editorial he wrote.
Next we have sixty scientists calling on Prime Minister Harper

Mac, you're citing editorials and letters. How about citing published and peer-reviewed scientific research? Because that's what the "other side" has.

Sorry Brian, but you might ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Sorry Brian, but you might want to use a web source that isn't just another paid front of the American Communist party as a source--they can try to re-write history but it is a fact they cried "new ice age" 20 years ago. The fact is global warming studies don't get funding unless the start off with the conclusion.

It isn't global warming wolf criers that are suppressed but the skeptics who are saying that maybe, just maybe, we should learn more about global warming before destroying economies and the lives of billions with political agendas.

The left is so quick to jump on any skeptic as "paid hack" of big oil. It's also just as easy to dismiss the left leaning scientists as nothing more than "paid hacks" of the socialist, anti-corporate crowd. Where do you think they get their grants for their whole "publish or perish" mindset?

According to the climate scientists we were supposed to have starved to death by now, the rain forest was supposed to be gone 20 years, we were supposed to suffer an ice age, droughts, and hundreds of other calamities.

Yet they can't consistently tell what the climate will do in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years much less 2 centuries.

We are talking about Al Gor... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

We are talking about Al Gore here, right? The Al Gore that flunked out of Theology school? The Al Gore who scored substantially lower on his military aptitude test than John Kerry? (Kerry was only slightly lower on his score than George W. Bush). That Al Gore???

you might want to use a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

you might want to use a web source that isn't just another paid front of the American Communist party as a source

Real Climate is a communist backed website? That's news to me, I thought it was a bunch of climatologists from UMass, Penn State, Potsdam, NASA, and U. of Chicago, etc. Better tell Science, Nature, and Scientific American. They're probably all communists too, eh?

The fact is global warming studies don't get funding unless the start off with the conclusion.

That's not a fact at all. Or can you back it up with something besides your own paranoid delusions?

It's also just as easy to dismiss the left leaning scientists as nothing more than "paid hacks" of the socialist, anti-corporate crowd. Where do you think they get their grants for their whole "publish or perish" mindset?

Mostly from the government, you twit.

According to the climate scientists we were supposed to have starved to death by now,

Which climate scientists said this, exactly? Oh, and btw, a lot more people would be starving if it weren't for Norman Borlaug.

the rain forest was supposed to be gone 20 years,

I'd like to see you back this up, too. Besides, the warnings had to do with logging and clearcutting, not climate.

we were supposed to suffer an ice age, droughts, and hundreds of other calamities.

All of which could still happen, but I'd like to see you back up these predictions, especially that they were predicted to happen by now. Bet you can't.

Yet they can't consistently tell what the climate will do in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years much less 2 centuries.

You don't even know the difference between weather and climate, do you? At least we can consistently tell that your comments will be paranoid and ignorant, and still will be in 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 years.

Oh, by the way, this:... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, by the way, this:

The fact is global warming studies don't get funding unless the start off with the conclusion.

is bass-ackwards. It's the oil-company supported right-wing think tank funded "scientists" who get money for pushing a presumptive conclusion. They don't usually do any original research for it though, they tend to just misrepresent findings.

The "Mediaval Warm... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The "Mediaval Warming" myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends.

There are dozens of proxy studies that demonstrate the medieval warm period was in fact a global phenomenon. We also know from direct measurements that the little ice age was also a global phenomenon. All this global climate change occurred before man-made CO2 could have had any effect.

If you're interested in the science supporting the global extent of the medieval warm period, check out the Medieval Warm Period Project page.

Anyone who would argue the ... (Below threshold)
FSimpson:

Anyone who would argue the causes of global warming are not partially man-made is an absolute moron.

Anyone who would suggest we not even try to do something about it is not even worth speaking to.

Any right-winger who believes the above points and who also posts on this site is an embarrassment to the human race and too stupid to live - and too dumb to realize their opinions are outdated.

Simp,Anyone who... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Simp,

Anyone who would argue the causes of global warming are not partially man-made is an absolute moron.

Can you tell us what percentage is man-made? Can anyone tell us?

Anyone who would suggest we not even try to do something about it is not even worth speaking to.

What do you suggest, stifling the economy with CO2 caps on businesses, or other hard reduction caps? Please let us know where you are coming from. And would you know if those changes would really effect the global climate in 100 years?

Any right-winger who believes the above points and who also posts on this site is an embarrassment to the human race and too stupid to live - and too dumb to realize their opinions are outdated.

Nothing like stopping the conversation before it has even begun.

What do you suggest... (Below threshold)
Fsimpson:

What do you suggest, stifling the economy with CO2 caps on businesses, or other hard reduction caps? Please let us know where you are coming from. And would you know if those changes would really effect the global climate in 100 years?

J.R., I don't have all the answers. But what you've given above are the same tired arguments that you only find coming out from right wingers - and they're wrong.

If I'm given a choice between making efforts to halt pollution that very well might be "stifling" this planet and letting businesses feel a little bit of hurt prior to readjusting themselves, I'd pick the planet every time.

And that basic argument - that the economy is to fragile to even attempt to help the planet - just lame. Bush and his people are the only one's making that argument and it's easy to see what the motivation is.

Just because you can't answer questions about where we'll be 100 years from now - and you're not willing to give creedence of any sort to a majority of global scientists (and consider your own uneducated judgement above theirs), is just willful ignorance - the kind that is always proven wrong.

And, besides all of this, who would EVER side with business and the Bush administration on anything having to do with human survival?

Simp,You know less... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Simp,

You know less about this planet and it's climate history than you do economics. Your being fed psuedo-science that proves nothing and believing it word for word. If the end result wasn't some sort of socialistic policy (anti-Capitalist) that would hurt the U.S. economy (big business as you call it I'm sure) you wouldn't be such an ardent supporter.

But what you've given above are the same tired arguments that you only find coming out from right wingers - and they're wrong.

That is pure crap. Nothing has been proven. Besides the IPCC report stated that there is nothing we can do about the warming anyway, so why bother. We are all doomed. The world is going to end I'll tell ya!!! Might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Being right-wing or conservative has nothing to do with doubting the science being used to justify the policy changes alarmists advocate for. And if you think right-wingers are the only ones doubting this, well then you are the one being ignorant.

Brian, <block... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Mac, you're citing editorials and letters. How about citing published and peer-reviewed scientific research? Because that's what the "other side" has.

If you bothered to look at some of the sites I linked to you would see literally hundreds of the articles are quoting from peer-reviewed scientific research. The myth Al Gore would have you believe is that the science is settled.

Mac,Is the IPCC as... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mac,

Is the IPCC assessment that came out today a myth? Or are they controlled by communist redistributionists? Is this statement from the White House:

"This Summary for Policymakers captures and summarizes the current state of climate science research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers," said Dr. Sharon Hays, the leader of the U.S. delegation at the meeting and Associate Director/Deputy Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "It reflects the sizeable (sic) and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years."

a myth? By the way the website you love to quote, co2Science.org, is still funded by energy interests and still produces no original research, choosing instead to cherrypick and misrepresent the findings of others.

they can try to re-write... (Below threshold)
Brian:

they can try to re-write history but it is a fact they cried "new ice age" 20 years ago.

In other words, all those verifiable citations have been tampered with, while the real facts are those from your biased memory?

mantis already said the other things I was going to say.

Why, the stock market was down today! All those people telling us the stock market is a good long-term investment

If you bothered to look ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If you bothered to look at some of the sites I linked to you would see literally hundreds of the articles are quoting from peer-reviewed scientific research.

True, I didn't read every article. But cherry-picking and reinterpreting someone else's research is a far cry from doing your own research. Those articles you cited are just that: articles. NOT research. NOT science.

The myth Al Gore would have you believe is that the science is settled.

It's no myth, and hasn't been since long before Gore started making the rounds.

Regardless of what is being... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Regardless of what is being said here, this is pretty damned interesting:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Actually, that's not the le... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Actually, that's not the least bit interesting. Who bases scientific policy on one of around 20 non-scientific articles written by the MSM 30 years ago? Besides, we've already covered that:

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Actually, that's not the... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Actually, that's not the least bit interesting.

You mean not interesting to you. Others may find it interesting. I'm sure that those contributing to the 1975 report by the National Academy of Sciences thought it interesting. It was probably interesting to Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. George Kukla of Columbia University obviously found it interesting. It appeared interesting to Dr. James McQuigg of the NOAA's Center for Climactic and Environmental Assessment. The article is only "regrettable" because it provided documentation of opinions contrary to the contemporary prostitutes of science. So, Brian, STFU.

Geez. You probably won't th... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Geez. You probably won't think this is interesting either. I'll bet the guys at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have sufficiently been made to wish they never released this:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

mantis,Is... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mantis,

Is the IPCC assessment that came out today a myth?

What the IPCC assessment represents is just that, an assessment of the science that supports their opinion. Over the next few months the scientists on the other side of the debate will analyze it and issue their critique. Are you going to be open minded, or is Global Warming just a political movement as some have suggested?

By the way the website you love to quote, co2Science.org, is still funded by energy interests and still produces no original research, choosing instead to cherrypick and misrepresent the findings of others.

It's you who are misrepresenting the authors behind co2Science.org. Dr. Idso directly addresses your contention here, but it seem few want to follow links so here are some excerpts.

We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC.

. . .all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the scientific literature.

What they review is based on what's being published in five different peer-reviewed scientific journals., so they are not cherrypicking any more than the IPCC is cherrypicking. Dr. Idso's positions on climate change have not changed in over 25 years, so the notion that he has been bought by big oil is a sham. In fact, he is one of the pioneers in the field.

Brian, Tr... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

True, I didn't read every article. But cherry-picking and reinterpreting someone else's research is a far cry from doing your own research. Those articles you cited are just that: articles. NOT research. NOT science.

But that's all the IPCC assessment is; just an assessment of scientific research; NOT research. NOT science. If it's valid for the IPCC to assess scientific research then it's equally valid for others to do the same thing. Dr. Idso's team at co2Science.org reviews material from five different peer-reviewed scientific journal each week.

The big lie Al Gore wants everyone to believe is that the science of climate change has been settled, but peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study proves that's a lie.

You mean not interesting... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You mean not interesting to you. Others may find it interesting.

Yes, true. Though I didn't really think we were going to consider the opinions of those who would rely more on a 30 year old Newsweek article than 6000+ peer-reviewed published scientific studies.

The article is only "regrettable" because it provided documentation of opinions contrary to the contemporary prostitutes of science.

Actually, the article quotes absolutely no one as predicting global cooling. It just puts a few tangentially-related quotes together and draws an unsupported conclusion between them.

And I agree it was "regrettable", but only if you replace "prostitutes" with "overwhelming prevailing opinion".

Geez. You probably won't... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Geez. You probably won't think this is interesting either. I'll bet the guys at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have sufficiently been made to wish they never released this:

Not at all. That report looks like a legitimate scientific study. We need more like that. It keeps science healthy.

But that's all the IPCC ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But that's all the IPCC assessment is; just an assessment of scientific research; NOT research.

And accordingly, it's truthfully not being misrepresented as scientific research:

The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world. ... The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming

And there's something else it's not doing: using someone else's research and reinterpreting the results. That's what the articles you linked to are doing: taking studies that draw one conclusion, and criticizing them and excerpting data to try to demonstrate another conclusion. In contrast, the IPCC report is simply reporting in aggregate what all peer-reviewed published reports have already concluded.

Dr. Idso's team at co2Science.org reviews material from five different peer-reviewed scientific journal each week.

Ha! So should we let Roger Ebert make movies simply because he reviews five of them a week? You don't get credibility just for sitting back and picking apart other peoples' work. Now, if Dr. Idso could cite five different peer-reviewed scientific studies that came to an anti-warming conclusion each week, that would be something.

The big lie Al Gore wants everyone to believe is that the science of climate change has been settled, but peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study proves that's a lie.

Back it up. Show us "peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study" that disputes global warming. If you can, millions will love you, because you'll have done something no one else has been able to do: disprove Al Gore's point:

a 2004 Science magazine survey of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of climate change showed 928 papers supporting man-made global warming. None denied it.
Hey, now here's a go... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hey, now here's a good way to get at scientific truth!

A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday
Brian, Th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world. ... The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming

Look at the end of the part you quoted and which I repeated. See how they have already reached the conclusion that there is global warming and so they are only interested in the studies that support that conclusion.

And there's something else it's not doing: using someone else's research and reinterpreting the results.

Are you joking? It's a common practice for scientists to reuse data from other scientists, both for other purposes and for different conclusions. Real science is to be shared, examined, criticized and reused. You're confusing science with Hollywood's intellectual property idea that no part of a song or story can be reused without permission. That not how science works. In science you can use other scientists' published works freely as long as you give proper credit. It's the data and methods used to gather it that are important. The conclusions are just how a person or team interprets the data. It's common for other scientists to offer alternate conclusions derived from the same data.

Back it up. Show us "peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study" that disputes global warming. If you can, millions will love you, because you'll have done something no one else has been able to do: disprove Al Gore's point:

Here's what I found in a few minutes work.

1. [The Greenland ice-sheet is gaining mass.] Johannessen, O.M., Khvorostovsky, K., Miles, M.W. and Bobylev, L.P. 2005. Recent ice-sheet growth in the interior of Greenland. Sciencexpress / www.sciencexpress.org / 20 October 2005.

2. [Demonstrates millennial-scale oscillation of climate.] Joerin, U.E., Stocker, T.F. and Schluchter, C. 2006. Multicentury glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene. The Holocene 16: 697-704.

3.. [No significant increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000] Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. 2006. Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JC003229.

Actually I'm not the first to prove Al Gore is flat wrong. Lord Christopher Monckton writes the following in an open letter:

You say, "While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it." Far from it. In rebuttal I could cite hundreds of refereed articles, but need cite only one: the recent paper by Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), On Global Forces of Nature Driving the Earth's Climate--Are Humans Involved?

The authors answer the title-question in the negative.

It's a common practice f... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's a common practice for scientists to reuse data from other scientists, both for other purposes and for different conclusions.

Yes, in further research. What I said they were doing is "using someone else's research and reinterpreting the results." That is, taking someone else's research and, rather than using it as the basis for additional published peer-reviewed research, simply writing "articles and editorials" that disagree with the conclusions. That's not research.

The first three articles you posted don't make the cut, since the existence of individual differences don't invalidate a greater theory. The "On Global Forces" paper looks like it might, though it's still in the overwhelming minority. I'm sure we can find published papers that state that smoking isn't harmful.

Actually, I rescind my sugg... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Actually, I rescind my suggestion that the "On Global Forces" paper could be reasonable science. Apparently their analysis assumes that the CO2 in our atmosphere has built up over billions of years. Given that we know it to be over the past few centuries, their conclusions are shown to be inaccurate.

See http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html , http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/paper_claims_human_co2_emissio.php

Brian,Yes... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Yes, in further research. What I said they were doing is "using someone else's research and reinterpreting the results." That is, taking someone else's research and, rather than using it as the basis for additional published peer-reviewed research, simply writing "articles and editorials" that disagree with the conclusions. That's not research.

It may not be original research, but it's real science. Either that or the rebuttal you linked to isn't science either. All they did was look at the same data and come up with a different conclusion. In fact, scientists often pull together data from the published works of several other scientists into their own compilation, which they then use to support their own conclusons. That's the way science works.

The first three articles you posted don't make the cut, since the existence of individual differences don't invalidate a greater theory.

I wasn't intending to invalidate anything. Your challenge to me was "Back it up. Show us "peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study" that disputes global warming."

The studies I cited are all peer-reviewed and they all dispute some aspect of human caused global warming, which is what Al Gore is peddling. Even if the rebuttal of "On Global Forces" stands, nevertheless both the original study and the rebuttal represent active science. Al Gore is simply ignorant of such studies or he's a liar, take your pick.

I'll concede that the claim... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'll concede that the claim of "zero" studies that rebut global warming seems to have not been based on a comprehensive enough review. But even so, their conclusions are in the vast minority, as (as noted earlier) are published papers that state that smoking isn't harmful.

Brian,Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Thanks for the civil dialog. Your challenges got me looking deeper into the subject and that's a good thing. Similarly, there are many unknowns concerning the science of climate change. The important thing is to not let politicians cut off scientific research regardless of what that research supports. Open scientific debate is the only proven method of figuring out such complex systems. Peace!

I wouldn't exactly say that... (Below threshold)
foolrex:

I wouldn't exactly say that Idso and the crowd at co2Science.org are unbiased scientists:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

And someone also relies upo... (Below threshold)
foolrex:

And someone also relies upon the Khilyuk and Chilingar 2006 paper to support the anti-climate change position.

For the record, these guys are geologists, not climate scientists and George V. Chilingarian (he uses both Chilingar and Chilingarian as his last name) is a Professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). He is one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry.

His greatest contribution to the petroleum industry may be a means of identifying oil-rich rock by analyzing the ratio of calcium to magnesium in core samples. This method was used in discovering one of Iran's largest oil fields, which was then named after Chilingar.

He also played a key role in the development of Thailand's offshore oil reserves. Chilingar saw natural gas bubbles in the Gulf of Siam and redirected exploratory efforts, thus saving the nascent Thai oil industry.

In 2001, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia acknowledged Chilingar's significant contributions to the success of Saudi Aramco as well as the discovery and extraction of oil reserves around the world.

Hmmmmm . . . neutral?

"Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf ack... (Below threshold)
Allen:

"Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf acknowledge in a paper titled Al Gore and the Internet that Gore has probably done more than any other elected official to support the growth and development of the Internet from the 1970's to the present."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy