I wrote an article on climate change and conflict a while back. Click on my link for that article.

The Bible clearly warns of a future of starvation and extreme heat here on Earth in the Four Horsemen. Certainly this dire future of climate change will kill a significant percentage of mankind, maybe far more than all wars have. The Bible has always been right before in matters of prophecy predicting 1948 rise of a new state of Israel and the role of Iran(Persia) in becoming the main nation that will lead to WWIII.

Is there any good reason to doubt the Biblical warnings about serious climate change that will take place because of inability of mankind to act as good stewards of God's Earth?

it's a little too late to do anything substancive about global warming. the population bomb is exploding before your eyes and we twiddle our thumbs.

Paul, the post is about how the Nobel "prize" is worthless and you give a diatribe of climate change as a sign of the end times. I knew yesterday was an aberration when I agreed with you.

JT, spot on. They are worthless. Michelle Malkin said it best when she said "just when you thought Algores head couldn't get any bigger." ww

And, if it's not too late, let's toss in Che Guevara into the mix.

JT... you forgot Cindy Sheehag. Certainly on a list of disingenuous fools, twits and appeasement monkeys she should get a Dishonorable Mention.

WW:

Paul, the post is about how the Nobel "prize" is worthless and you give a diatribe of climate change as a sign of the end times. I knew yesterday was an aberration when I agreed with you.

Hooson seems to be having his "thought train" leeping off it's track today.

Give the poor guy a break!

haha, great posting. i agree with u.

http://sophiesworld-sophiesworld.blogspot.com/2007/10/ignoble-winner.html

woof woof

Paul H.
Do you really want to engage a discussion on the apocalypse, its writings and theology?

Bwahahahahaha

What a crock. Apart from the "worthless UN" now the Nobel Committee is worthless.

Could it be that the way you see the world just hasppens to be at odds with what 90% of the rest of the world sees?

Your problem is simply that your Republican Party has produced a Pantheon of "heroes" like Nixon, forced to resign because he was a crook & two current leaders, Bush & Cheney who deserve to be in the dock at The Hague, on trial for war crimes.

Wildwillie and Marc, even the biggest possible bomb that mankind could build can only kill a limited number of humans compared to a massive shift in the environment.

50,000 children die each day in the world from starvation, often because environmental conditions have changed so much in just the last 50 years because rain has stopped in some parts of the world, rivers have dried up, first the fish died, then the cattle, then the people, and farmers cannot find the remaining water to grow any crops in some areas such as parts of Mozambique due to climate shifts.

When the food supply gets tight here in the U.S., then it will finally hit home that something serious and likely manmade is shifting the environment.

Shouldn't the Nobel Prize reward persons who limit the number of deaths of fellow humans.

Man, when decisions like this get publicly announced I realize I would have given almost anything to be a fly on the wall of the conference room where the discussion that led to this decision was taking place. I am sure the transcript would make a great basis for a comedy of great parody and farce.

You forgot Wangari Maathai and her implication that AIDS was a bioengineering experiment created by western scientists and purposefully unleashed in Africa.

You can always start your own Peace Prize, and give it to more deserving honorees such as Ann Coulter or whomever you please. Just an idea.

We're cooling, folks.
====================

Hooson:

rivers have dried up, first the fish died, then the cattle, then the people,

You tried this crap line in the other related thread so I'll repeat my query here as well.

So you're saying the people were so dumb they looked around saw no fish, no cattle, no food of any kind, then and only then they just gave up and failed to use their FEET to walk the hell out of there. They just laid down in a pile of climate induced DUST and died.

Is that it Hooson? Is that why they died?

How about this... "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but give a man a cheap-assed chinese scooter and he can drive himself out of the desolation he's surrounded with."

Hooson:

Shouldn't the Nobel Prize reward persons who limit the number of deaths of fellow humans.

Considering the prize is named after the Nobel who developed a smokeless gunpowder called Ballistite one could argue it should be awarded to the person or country that killed the most people during the year.

In which case it should go to the gov of Sudan.

I remember dry riverbeds, starving children in the sixties. I also read in the bible that there has been many, many famines. Lots of starvation. You are bending the facts to fit your political opinion. It is the lowest of the low. Just like all those organization on t.v. that show starving children to collect money but use most of it for "administrative" costs. If there is a famine in a country, why would people still have sex and make babies. Seems like there are stupid people out there. ww

WildWillie, FEED THE CHILDREN only spends about 5% of it's budget for "administrative costs" according to reputable charity accounting reports, and that's because it has to buy the time on TV to air their program. By comparison the excellent Salvation Army organization spends close to 30% on Administrative costs because it offers salaries to many poor persons such as bell ringers to help them out financially and give them work. It is only some TV evangelists who spend about 80% on "administrative costs" when they run a charity drive.

You forgot HUGO!!!!

Al Gore won the Peace Prize?

I guess this means Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will just have to wait until next year.

Frankly I don't know what's worse, Al Gore in the same boat with Yassir Arafat, or Al Gore in the same boat with a real scientist and peace activist like Andrei Sakharov. Both men tarnish Gore tremendously, albeit in opposite ways.

This is a great day for America and the planet.

At least Al can say he won something now out from under Clinton. A win based on pity and to shove the global warming bit a little farther down our throats. He is a tool. The U.N. getting them gives me the same feeling as when congress votes themselves a raise.

Al Gore did a lot for peace.

He poisoned our politics, by his lack of grace and oversized ego by refusing to concede in 2000. Thus, we can thank him for the netroots. Without them, we wouldn't have Peace Mom Sheahen.

So he did something for peace. BJ Clinton did more for a piece, though.

Question, in all seriousness, who do you think should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year? The stated criteria are "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Since most of the sarcastic and facetious nominations seem to have already been made here, I'm asking for serious input.

Who do the readers/writers of whizbang think is most deserving of the award and what have they done to meet the standards that Nobel set forth in establishing the prize?

King George bested by Al Gore. Now that's got to hurt.

This is bound to cause a more concerted march into Iran.

George will have to prove something to someone that he can do better.

"children's do learn"

What I want to know is why do all these silly libs think that winning
a Nobel Peace Prize would at all enhance Gorebot's presidential chances...as if the average American voter gives hoot about it.

"This is a great day for America and the planet."

Why? Because good intentions, not actual solutions, coupled with ridiculous lies about normal climate temperature fluctuations somehow have "saved" our planet?

Tell you what B2K. You have just won the Blogical Feelgood Prize. Now it's an even better day for America and the planet. Rejoice!

Rance, I think you ask an excellent question and I am going to take some time (hopefully you would give me the same amount of time the Nobel Committee has) to come up with a nominee. However, you cannot possibly agree that Gore fits these criteria and therefore you should respect that he is, in fact, a bad choice. Also, if you consider the reminders of many (not all, but many) of the winners cited by others above you would see that the Committee cannot even follow the criteria you have quoted.

Best yet, Gore beat Rush for the prize.

I had considered this angle for my post about it, so it's cool you did it for me.

Should we say things are "cool" anymore? Perhaps to be trendy we should replace it with "warm." "Hey, what a warm post, Jay Tea! You really outdid yourself this time."

King George bested by Al Gore. Now that's got to hurt."

Really? Winning a Nobel Peace Prize is somehow besting someone? I guess you're right, though. Yassir Arafat did murder and orchestrated the murder of plenty of Israelis to earn his, so I guess you could say that.

In light of that, I value people more for not winning one.

"Best yet, Gore beat Rush for the prize."

LOL! Do you really believe that was a serious nomination, or that he was expected to "win"?

You're more comical than normal today.

Shouldn't the Nobel Prize reward persons who limit the number of deaths of fellow humans.

This is exactly right. Which is why Ronald Reagan should have won it (or shared it jointly with Margaret Thatcher) for helping to bring down the Soviet Union, one of the most murderous regimes in all of human history, and why George Bush should eventually receive it for being at the forefront in the fight against global Islamic terrorism, which threatens the entire world. That is, of course, if we lived in a sane world. Alas, we do not.

The fact that the Nobel committee would rather award it to the maker of an error-ridden propaganda film is proof that all the Nobel Peace Prize is nowadays is simply a form of advocacy for whatever item of left-wing mythology is currently being pushed as the cause du jour.

He also got a undeserved oscar for that same peice of junk science i mean these awards are no longer awarded for what they were origionaly attended for they are awared for how left-wing and fruadelent they are

What source are you using for Arafat's death by AIDS? Just curious.

I now consider the Noble Peace Prize the same as I consider a warm dog turd on the sole of my shoe...(scrapes poo from shoe...continue with life.)