# Al Gore gets Nobel Peace Prize



## rayinstirling (Oct 12, 2007)

The people now responsable for giving out these prizes have just ended any credence I ever had for them.

Question #1: does global warming exist - answer yes numerous times along with cooling.
Question #2: do CO2 levels precede or follow previous global warming - answer follow.
Question #3: are scientists and scientific researchers one and the same - answer depends on who is paying them but usually no.
Question #4: there are two people in a room and you may ask them to answer a question which would be of great benefit to you and they supposedly can supply an answer. One is an expert and one has expertise. Which one would you trust.

Has the use of Al Gore's book in UK schools been challenged - yes
Why - read question #2 again

do I dislike everyone in politics? - probably! after they've been at the trough for a few years.


----------



## Ed (Oct 12, 2007)

Why does this annoy you so much?


----------



## mathis (Oct 12, 2007)

Annoyance doesn't bring back the snow on the mountains.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Oct 12, 2007)

If all politicians were putting their energy (no punt intended) into issues such as global warming, world hunger, persecution of minorities...etc, the world would be a better place.
Gore may not be an expert but he certainly contributed to global awareness of this important issue, and that's a good thing, even if some of the facts may be exagerated. 
Since the US government extremely exagerates in hiding the real facts, it is to be expected that people that want to bring public awareness to the subject use the same tactics: fear.
I don't think people would care if you told them: "Hey, the planet's temperature is raising by half a degree over a period of ... years, or: "in 50 years the ocean will have raised by ... inches"
Unless people feel they are personally impacted by an issue, they tend not to care.
So goes the human psyche...

I say Gore's nomination is a good thing...


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Since the US government extremely exagerates in hiding the real facts, it is to be expected that people that want to bring public awareness to the subject use the same tactics: fear.



Just remember that NASA got the climate data wrong and very quitely corrected it a couple months ago. This is the same climate data that Gore and others have used to trumpet their cause. It turns out that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record in the US, it's now 1934 after the corrections. Also, after the corrections, only 3 of the last 10 years are included in the 10 hottest years in the US; most are pre-1940's.

(In all honesty, though, the differences are so minute as to be of little consequence, particularly on a global level. But that just adds credence to the argument that we're not really certain what's going on. So it's still worth keeping an eye on global warming.)

I haven't seen Gore coming forth to say "You know, we got it wrong." So, I guess he's not technically hiding anything, but it sort of violates the spirit of "public awareness", doesn't it?

All people are guilty of hiding information contrary to their agendas. Gore is no different....!!!! Besides, I'm not certain I want a guy who got worse science grades than Bush advising me on matters of science :wink: :D 

rgames


----------



## Alex W (Oct 12, 2007)

I'm no expert on the matter of global warming, but the thing of it is, and it's quite a simple point really, we should treat it as though it was real. It's been confirmed now to be a real problem. Whether or not we humans are having more than a negligible impact on it is a matter for serious debate, sure - but in the meantime, let's not wait for the right answer. There's not much larger a risk one could take.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 12, 2007)

rgames @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Since the US government extremely exagerates in hiding the real facts, it is to be expected that people that want to bring public awareness to the subject use the same tactics: fear.
> ...



Link please.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

What Mathis says. Sorry, you people who doubt the reality of every single thing Al Gore is saying are fools. I don't mean that in the insulting sense, I mean it in the sense that you're terribly gullible.

The only reason there's any debate about this whatsoever is because of a massive disiniformation campaign paid for by the people who profit from continuing down our present path toward global ecological collapse.

And Richard, your comment about Al Gore's science is astounding. How can someone with your intelligence actually post that? You're displaying the depth of Ann Coulter.

Ray, the simple incontrovertible answer to your #2 is that CO2 levels both follow and precede warming in different situations. The *fact* that they follow it is what we're concerned with.

Just yesterday there was yet another nail in the coffin of these imbeciles who want to hasten the demise of our civilization so they can profit in the short term:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-10-10-humidity-increase_N.htm?csp=34 (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... htm?csp=34)

I also find it interesting that you people say nothing about the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shares the prize with Al Gore. They had to do some serious political dancing to keep the teeth in their report.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

We had a big debate on this forum when Gore's "documentary" came out.

At the time I looked at the Nasa graphs and it was obvious that the data was "cooked". The graphs where just wrong. So I looked at three other independent University temperature graphs and concluded that there is no Global warming. Perhaps the argument could be made that the Earth is .6 degrees hotter now than it was in 1880. But even that would be pushing it.

Knowing several people that work for NASA I can give a little incite into the organization. Most employees of Nasa are on a contract type basis. They get contracted with benefits and stuff to work on a project to project basis. So they have an incentive to keep projects going and invent new projects. Back in the mid to late '90's Nasa's overall budget was cut in half. Literally. And thus they had to change to a different operating basis. Most employees back then where going without raises and the average salary was about 35,000. Which even back then sucked. A scientist with a doctorate was making about 70,000. Since then I doubt much has changed.

NASA for the most part doesn't want to or is forbidden by law to do lucrative military work so their only justification for existence is to do space exploration. Unfortunately for us they're not very good at it. And in the late '90's they lost 3 satellite missions to Mars in a row. This friggin' crippled the space program. They have yet to recover really. Mars was suppose to be the next big frontier thus raising hundreds of millions of dollars for Nasa and it's employees. They had planned manned space flights to mars in 2003, 2005 and 2007. After they lost 3 unmanned missions the manned missions of course lost all their funding.

Why NASA got involved in Earth weather is a mystery. And that they deliberately falsified data I only concluded that they where trying to find the next frontier and to raise public sentiment so they could get more money to fund more missions. It's failed and if there ever is a problem I and a lot of others now don't believe or trust the "authorities" on the matter.

Of all the problems to worry about and of all the things a guy like Al Gore could rally the population to a cause, to me this falls down at the bottom of the heap. We have nukes, we have Al-Kaida, we have wars being fought for no reason, we have Russia building the biggest bomb ever, we have a polluted Earth, we have econmonies that crush entire populations of people, we have "mental Health" officials pedaling presciption drugs to minors like it was candy, we have America's debt being owed to enemies like China, we have so many problems that will kill us way before this one. If damn politicians really wanted to help they'd be fighting against that stuff. Not trying to use obviously cooked up data to scare people into giving more money. 

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

Thonex @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Link please.



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/216695/Global_Warming_Debate_Reignited_After_NASA_Quietly_Corrects_Temperature_Data (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/2 ... ature_Data)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

Jose, the temperature of the planet is rising at a rate of about .1 degree per year on average because we are burning fossil fuels. It doesn't matter what else you or anyone else says; we need to switch to a different energy economy over the next few decades to avert global ecological collapse.

Fact. It's something we all need to worry about, and we need to insist that our politicians act now. The longer we wait the more expensive and harder to avert catastrophe it will become.

By the way, global warming is just one of the ecological crises we're facing. Note that many other civilizations in history have collapsed after using up all their resources, mostly because they failed to act. The only difference today is that there are many times more people and that it's a global problem, not just Easter Island or the Mayans or the Norse in Greenland, etc.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2007)

Here are a couple of links regarding NASA's corrections:

http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.h ... 607_2.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001

Just for the record, I do believe global warming is an issue worth investigating. I also agree that, based on the data I've seen, we are currently witnessing a rise in global temperatures. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of long-term trends or whether it's a result of human activity.

Consider this: right now, the Earth is getting closer to the Sun. If you take data every single day from now until Jan. 3 (perihelion), you'll find that the Earth is continuing to get closer to the Sun. So, eventually, we must be heading for a collision with our neighborhood star, right? Of course not, because this limited set of data is part of a larger cycle that eventually moves us further away, we just can't see the larger picture because of our limited data set. Climate change might be the same phenomenon.

Here's how science works: 

1. Somebody comes up with a theory or an observation regarding a natural phenomenon.
2. He explains it by publishing an account of it in the scientific literature.
3. Scientists debate whether or not the explanation is valid (experimentally and theortically).
4. Eventually, the scientific method determines the validity of the claim.
5. If found valid, the claim becomes part of the scientific canon.

With regard to global warming, we're in stage 3 right now. Sure, there are lots of scientists who say that the warming is a result of human activity, but there are a fair number who argue against that explanation (e.g. they claim it is part of a natural cycle, see the orbit example above).

Having said all of that, the real issue is what should we do about it? Well, the sensible thing to do is to take whichever steps provide the most benefit with the least adverse effects. Right now, nobody argues that taking the necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a good idea; I certainly support it. However, the reason for doing so is not because there's overwhelming evidence that it's a problem, it's simply because there's no harm in it and it might help. That's the sensible argument for environmental responsibility. 

So yes, go green. Whether you choose to do so because you think global warming is a result of human activity doesn't really matter. It just means that somebody's going to have to eat crow in 100 years or so .

rgames


----------



## nomogo (Oct 12, 2007)

All I know is this:

Gore = Nobel Peace Prize
Bush = Iraq war

Great choice America


----------



## Evan Gamble (Oct 12, 2007)

Global Warming is a moot issue. It's simply a by-facter to a real problem (if its true-I dont know I've seen both documentaries and just can't say without doing the actual tests myself-which I can't) Polution and fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels will eventually run out and pollution is obviously not good, it's that simple.


So the solution is to do our best to use alternative fuel sources. This should be our generations "Space Race" Done with as much enthusiasm(which Gore helps with) and balance to our economy.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this, but what do I know?

Oh and ETM dude-Americans DID vote for Gore..but yeah...sigh :( ..you know the rest.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

ETM Dude @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> All I know is this:
> 
> Gore = Nobel Peace Prize
> Bush = Iraq war
> ...



It wasn't our fault. I don't know about the second election but I will say that the second election showed obvious signs of tampering. 

Btw, Gamble's right.

Jose


----------



## mathis (Oct 12, 2007)

It's hard to accept that people talk more about scientific proofs than trusting their own eyes. If you live near the mountains and are used to glaciers sitting stately on the mountains you know what's going on. It's simply and soberly: sad.
They disappear with frightening speed. It's as if you can watch it live.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

Well, Evan's right and he's mostly right in my opinion. Yes we're going to run out of oil (or oil that's cheap to get to), most likely sometime in the next few decades. Yes we need to be researching sustainable alternatives, and that's probably going to take a measurable percentage of our GNP; our entire economy depends on cheap energy, and once that goes we're in trouble, so it's worth it.

But global warming is a very real problem too. The reason it's important that everyone be on the same page is that obviously politics are a huge part of the problem, especially when it comes to China. There are going to be parts of the world that win with global warming - Siberia for example, where it'll be easier to get at their oil.

With China and other third-world countries racing to achieve first-world living standards (something the earth doesn't have the resources to support, which is a sad truth) it's important that they stop trading some environmental damage for an expanding economy. Whether or not the earth is going to warm up as a result of their pollution is very important.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

Richard, you'll have to excuse me for saying that your analysis is pedantic and silly.

What's going has nothing to do with any of your methodical nonsense. Far from being at your stage three, we're at a stage where gullible people believe hideous lies spread around in a shrewdly orchestrated propaganda campaign. These amoral swine have been paying scientists to come to the conclusions they want. They take out ads, they spread money around...it's really ugly.

And the result is that even intelligent people like you believe their sinister nonsense.

Note that I'm not someone who advocates throwing away all our oil infrastructure overnight and moving to something else; I recognize that the oil companies can't just walk away from billions of dollars in investments. As I may have posted, it would be like you or me throwing away our cars; we aren't going to do that until they wear out. But that has to be balanced against the reality that we're headed toward certain disaster.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 12, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ October 12th 2007 said:


> What's going has nothing to do with any of your methodical nonsense. Far from being at your stage three, we're at a stage where gullible people believe hideous lies spread around in a shrewdly orchestrated propaganda campaign. These amoral swine have been paying scientists to come to the conclusions they want. They take out ads, they spread money around...it's really ugly.



The same is said of information supporting global warming. Hey, those scientists supporting global warming have been paid to cook up facts to support it. Smear campaigns like this go on all the time in public debates, with one side pointing the finger at the other and claiming foul play.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2007)

wow- the ignorance displayed here is astounding. From antidepressants work because they limit oxygen to the brain( good one, Jose) to Nasa misleading us. 

Keep up the lonely fight ,Nick. I'm beginning to believe you ARE right about eveything. (except reverbs)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

Don't tell anyone, but occasionally I'm wrong about reverbs too.

Moonchilde, the fact that the same is said to support oil companies doesn't mean that it's not a heaping mound of goat custards. And in fact it is.

I'd like to see your and other peoples' response to the article I linked above. Moving closer to the sun? Al Gore is a politician? Those arguments don't explain why the humidity is getting greater as a result of warming, and if you subtract man-made emissions from the computer model it zeroes out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

By the way, Richard, I apologize for getting carried away arguing with you. My insults came off a little more harshly than I intended.

You're not a horrible person, just misguided.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 12, 2007)

mathis is right. Look at the glaciers and the north and south pole. The evidence that things are changing is overwhelming.

Are we the cause? I don't know

Can we afford to wait and find out? Hmmm... in this particular case I have to say that my instinct tells me that a system as fragile as the climate that we have on this planet may hold out... it may adjust.... it may also just flip. Who knows?

Can we afford to find out?

I don't think so, so I'd rather give the economy a boost and thereby help everyone by promoting and implementing new technology. That's a good thing people! Whether the climate changes or not, changes in the current energy policy structure can really only help the world as a whole. On a political, social and security level.

Maybe I'm the only one seeing this, but the current way of acquiring energy causes so much conflict all over the world I think it's about time to end this mess and start with a new concept. Regardless of climate, but in the interest of geopolitical stability.

Best
Hans


----------



## mathis (Oct 12, 2007)

well spoken, Hans


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 12, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ October 12th 2007 said:


> Moonchilde, the fact that the same is said to support oil companies doesn't mean that it's not a heaping mound of goat custards. And in fact it is....



Fuck it, I had a large post, but I just don't care anymore. Tired of arguing on the net all the time. Point of my original post was, slander for or against anything is wrong in the first place, and thats basically what you're doing. 

I digress, and will be taking leave from this discussion now.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 12, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri 12 Oct said:


> it would be like you or me throwing away our cars


That would be a good first step. Talking won't help much. Action will.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> wow- the ignorance displayed here is astounding. From antidepressants work because they limit oxygen to the brain( good one, Jose) to Nasa misleading us.
> 
> Keep up the lonely fight ,Nick. I'm beginning to believe you ARE right about eveything. (except reverbs)



What the hell are you talking about? I never said antidepressants work. That's HOW they react on a body. And, quite the opposite. I don't think they work unless you're the kind of person who thinks that getting high relieves anxiety.

And yes. Check out the NASA graphs. If you don't think they're misleading then you really haven't studied how to read or chart graphs. They are misleading. But most glaringly they're not scaled correctly so it gives an exaggerated reading. But the next two or three years will make that glaringly apparent so I don't need to debate it. I'm just glad that somebody did bust them on the numbers.

Its the same old liberal vs. conservative crap that gets played over and over in this country. Both sides making shit up to rally their cause. Nothing gets done and the truth gets buried.

To be honest I'm inclined to stick to the global warming idea because it's easy enough to understand for people and you can rally for the right causes under that banner. 

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

It aso happens to be reality, Jose. Unfortunately the drugs don't have any effect on that.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2007)

josejherring @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> [quote="artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:21 pThat's HOW they react on a body. And, quite the opposite. I don't think they work unless you're the kind of person who thinks that getting high relieves anxiety."
> 
> Jose



Incredibly ingnorant statement. I mean, seriously wrong on every level. You embarass yourself. look up seratonin.

However, Jose, the earth is flat.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2007)

aeneas, I actually agree and disagree. Of course action is what's required, but the political and economic obstacles are as real as anything else. You can't just wish them away; nobody is going to throw away their cars before they're ready to retire, and oil companies aren't going to abandon billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure overnight. The transition can only happen gradually.

And Hans, of course you're not the only one who sees that oil causes conflict and that we have to deal with these energy problems whether or not global warming is man made. The fact that it is just makes the situation more urgent.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:21 pThat's HOW they react on a body. And, quite the opposite. I don't think they work unless you're the kind of person who thinks that getting high relieves anxiety."
> ...



Ok. Seriously dude. Put down the crack pipe. Again I'm at a loss to understand what the hell you're talking about. Then you hurl insults. Learn to spell "serotonin" and "ignorant" then maybe I'll bother trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Oct 12, 2007)




----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2007)

oh dear.... Welllll... in a past post you stated the same ignorance as you just did. My point exactly about the kind of info expressed here. It's baffling how an intelligent person like you can actually believe that silliness. And I dont mean to insult, but when someone tries to spout this kind of ridiculous info- well, you dont get off so easy. You made your own bed on that. But, while I didnt really mean to single you out, it was just the kind of weird thinking that I've seen here. Baffling. 

And thats my point here. There is so much group think and non critical thinking. You owe it to yourself to think critically.

W/regard to spelling- thats the internet ,man. Few people regard spelling mistakes as any indication of intelligence here. You know better than that. 


But you are just SO wrong as to be embarrasing. I'm reasonably certain someone in your life suffers from depression. Please dont try to "help" them with this ignorance. It is seriously way out there.


Ok- I've had my fun. Jose, just research info critically. BTW- i do think you are an ok guy and a fine musician. Just significantly uninformed on a couple of things. 

Back to Global warming. All we need to do is tilt the earth, Since it's flat. the heat should slide right off.


edit- uh... I can see where this is headed so let me officially say that I retract evrything I have said. I belive Nasa screwed us and China is our enemy. And watch out for the drugged out children. And prison for poor spellers! It affects the "econmonies" and "Al-Kaida "


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2007)

one last point then we can be friends again- NASA is not the leading word on global warming. The Nobel was won by the U.N and that represents a consensus among WORLD scientists.

What is important to note is that all the countries involved were given the responsibility to write their summation of the info provided and there was little disagreement across the board. This is unusual as countries tend to disagree for political reasons. In this case, however, most of the world scientists are on the same page. It's an important and remarkable aspect of this argument. 

Leave NASA out of this for a minute. They have cool astronauts.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> But you are just SO wrong as to be embarrasing. I'm reasonably certain someone in your life suffers from depression. Please dont try to "help" them with this ignorance. It is seriously way out there.



The fact that you've stated an absolute here just proves that you're not thinking things out. Me I never said I was right. I just expressed my opinion based on the graphs that I actually DID look up and spent a few hours analyzing. I can find them for you if you wish.

There are so many holes for or against global warming that it was clear to me that nobody really knows for sure. But that's to me. If it's your belief that it's happening based on facts that you know then I'm willing to accept that too.

As for me. I'm not convinced. I've been involved more or less in Science since about 8th grade and I've heard the same arguments for global warming along with the statement that by the year 2000 the entire Eastern seaboard would be flooded with water due to melting glaciers. It didn't happen.

Everybody on all sides fail to ask the critical questions or look at how the data is being gathered. And the way the data is being gathered is suspect. As proven by the NASA "correction". Well those mistakes where quite obvious the first time I looked at the NASA graph. 

But this is such a push button topic bringing out zealots on all sides that I think it best be left for others to debate. 

Good night.

Jose


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 12, 2007)

That's HOW they react on a body. And, quite the opposite. I don't think they work unless you're the kind of person who thinks that getting high relieves anxiety." 


I was talkin' bout that.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 12, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri 12 Oct said:


> nobody is going to throw away their cars before they're ready to retire, and oil companies aren't going to abandon billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure overnight. The transition can only happen gradually.


Transition is just another word - I believe in individual positive action now. IMO, each individual's action is the most basic thing that can and will overthrown the actual state of affairs. 

It is really very simple to throw away your car, it's just that "you" are so addicted to it that "you" are tied up - how can "you" do such a _stupid_ thing as throwing away your car?! :shock: So "you" prefer to talk politics. Me, I never had a car, and I refused the one my mother offered me as a gift. And that was before this big talk about global warming. It may appear insignificant to you, but to me every little thing that supports a good principle IS significant. When the majority will refuse to contribute to a wrong state of affairs, the world will be a better place. But the change can come only from within "you", don't expect it to come from the others. "You" should LIVE the change before preaching it. It's simple, it's just not that easy. But it is really feasible - I am one who did throw away a car.

Point is: one who drives a car can't really speak against pollution. A physician can't smoke in your face while warning you about secondary smoking and cancer. Don't blame the corporations, blame your own addiction to commodities. But, as the French say, "l'enfer, c'est les autres." :wink: My personal belief is that everything that counts starts with everyone's own yard.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> one last point then we can be friends again- NASA is not the leading word on global warming. The Nobel was won by the U.N and that represents a consensus among WORLD scientists.



I think the world's scientists would disagree with that statement on at least two levels. First, there is not a consensus about the cause of global warming. Second, scientists choose to be represented by the scientific community, not the political community.

And that scientific community has a well-established process by which it validates ideas. Maxwell's electricity and magnetism, Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics - all of these theories have been embraced by the world scientific community because they have been put through the ringer of the scientific method. There is consensus on these topics because they have stood the test of time. It is far too premature to say the same about global warming.

That's where the Nobel committee went astray - there's just not enough evidence that the stance taken by Gore and the UN panel is an accurate reflection of reality. They jumped the gun - if we do come to some consensus regarding global warming, then it makes sense to award someone for it (maybe not Gore, but he'll do, I suppose ). Take Einstein's Nobel Prize as an example: he was awarded in 1921 for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect. In the intervening 16 years, there was plenty of investigation and validation of his work, to the extent that the world scientific community did, in fact, accept the phenomenon as an accurate description of reality, so much so that it sparked an entirely new field of study (quantum mechanics). Gore and the UN have a very long way to go before reaching that level of acceptance.

*So why did Gore and the UN panel get the prize?* Well, let's look back into history and ask another question: why the heck did the Nobel committee give Einstein the prize for the photoelectric effect and not relativity? Ahem. Well, it was politics... And did Einstein list the prize among his most valued? Actually, not at all - he didn't even bother to show up and receive it... Here's the moral of that story: politics is everywhere, even among the esteemed Nobel committee! So bear that history in mind as you consider Gore's award and its significance.

Fortunately the laws of nature cannot be rewritten as a result of political wrangling! And only they will tell if Gore and the UN have led us astray.

In the meantime, though, Go Green! It can only help.

rgames


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 13, 2007)

Some people on this thread are apparently equating the Nobel *Peace* Prize with the Nobel *Physics* Prize.

The Nobel is not one prize. Since there seems to be some confusion, here is the list of prizes:

physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, peace


----------



## mathis (Oct 13, 2007)

When Global Warming is scientifically proven on all levels it is too late, can't you understand?

This debate is active since decades and scientific research only shows that it is even worse than guessed.


----------



## Ed (Oct 13, 2007)

So called "experts" that claim humans have nothing to do with global warming are like the "experts" that claim tobacco smoke doesnt cause lung cancer or the "experts" that claim Evolution is a faulty science (re: Intelligent Design).


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 13, 2007)

... or that the twin towers were brough down by demolitions  :D


----------



## Ed (Oct 13, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Oct 13 said:


> ... or that the twin towers were brough down by demolitions  :D



Except no WTC bombs ≠ no conspiracy

And theres still a lot of interesting issues surrounding their collapse and 911 itself that apparently no one else here really wants to discuss


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2007)

> Some people on this thread are apparently equating the Nobel *Peace* Prize with the Nobel *Physics* Prize.



Certainly there are different Nobel prizes - we all realize that. Regardless of which is awarded, though, the point is that the choice of recipient is often politically motivated, the Peace prize more so than the others, in fact. The fact that somebody wins one of the prizes doesn't necessarily mean that there's outstanding merit to their work.



> When Global Warming is scientifically proven on all levels it is too late, can't you understand?



How about "If Global Warming..."  Regardless, though, I have agreed all along:



> In the meantime, though, Go Green! It can only help.
> rgames



There are all sorts of other advantages that follow from doing so.

Here's the bottom line: the environment that surrounds us is an extremely complex system; we can't predict its behavior with any real certainty (at this point). We can't even predict the weather three days from now - how can we predict the weather 20 years from now? Just because ice caps are melting right now doesn't mean they will continue to do so forever. Nor does it necessarily mean that the melting is a result of human interaction. Ever been to Yosemite? Somehow the glaciers that were there melted long before gas-guzzling SUV's.

Sure, we can spot trends, and we are probably in the middle of a long-term warming trend. But that's about all we can say with any certainty. There's reason to believe it might be the result of human interaction; absolutely. There's also reason to believe it might continue for some time and cause major changes in global weather patterns; absolutely. But neither of these suppositions has passed the scientific litmus test and crossed into the realm of certainty. It's conjecture at this point. Granted, it's good conjecture with a scientific basis and supporting evidence, but it is far from fact.

But good conjecture is still sufficient reason for action, particularly when those actions provide other benefits. So, again, Go Green!

*IN SUMMARY:* I think global warming *probably is a real problem*. However, it has not been validated to the level that a prize like the Nobel should require.

rgames


----------



## aeneas (Oct 13, 2007)

rgames @ Sat 13 Oct said:


> *IN SUMMARY:* I think global warming *probably is a real problem*. However, it has not been validated to the level that a prize like the Nobel should require.


You seem to know a lot about the criteria used for granting a Peace Nobel prize. Were you in the jury? Would you share your experience there? :wink: Or you are only supposing, guessing, assuming, giving a personal opinion, etc. - like everybody else does? (my bet is on the latter _conjecture_  )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2007)

"First, there is not a consensus about the cause of global warming."

And that right there is where you are 100% wrong! There are a few extreme idealogues who say it's not related to greenhouse gases created by man, but they're way out there. Unfortunately they have a huge amount of money behind them, and they're bribed to say that.

And I still haven't heard an answer to the article I linked showing the latest evidence. That's because there isn't one, of course.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2007)

"My personal belief is that everything that counts starts with everyone's own yard."

aeneas, this is a problem that requires both bottom-up (individual/grass roots) and top-down (goverment) solutions. But mainly top-down; our entire way of life is based on energy, in fact you can even break down the mainstream global economic system to an exchange of energy. People live in total poverty where energy isn't available, for instance rural India.

It's beyond unrealistic to believe that global warming is going to be halted by people throwing away their cars. Or by oil companies abandoning unimaginably high investments in equipment and oil drilling/exploration rights. We need huge investments into all the alternative energy sources that are so promising in order to make them practical; that's not going to happen at a bottom-up level, it's going to take government action on a huge scale. And it's going to take several decades to bring in.

That's why I posted recently that I like the Democratic emphasis on "green" energy creating jobs. I'd like to see Republican candidates doing the same thing, because this is the number one issue facing civilization right now.

By the way, you must live in an area with a good public transpotation system. In Los Angeles you need a car to get around and conduct business normally. If I were in New York or Boston, sure, I'd be happy not to have a car. But not here; pretty much the only people who don't have cars work in bottom-level jobs. There's nothing wrong with that, but you and I don't want to clean houses to scrape by if we can help it.

I should also add that about 45% (if I remember right - it's somewhere around that) of the oil in the US goes to transportation. So even if everyone threw away their cars tomorrow, the problem would still exist.

The problem of our economy stopping dead in its tracks would also be a minor issue. Millions of starving people can be sort of annoying.


----------



## mathis (Oct 14, 2007)

More annoying than Al Gore, in fact.


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 15, 2007)

OK, I own up. I’ve been away for a few days vacation and following that announcement being made just before I left I couldn’t resist starting this thread. It probably comes from the same Scottish dry humour presented in the USA by Craig Ferguson but I don’t wear big ears.
I should have known it would get all political or should I say an argument (discussion) over who spend the most dollars in presenting their case.
Who does not have vested interest in their truth? 
If I’m making money out of oil I want to keep selling it.
If I’m a scientific researcher I want funding for as many years as possible to feed my wife and kids. Vested interest is the same on whatever rung of that ladder you’re standing on.
Please don’t think of me as being anything other than a sceptic.
I’m the first person in my family to switch of lamps or any other electrical appliances to save and use less energy. That’s a no brainer but it’s the connection between personal energy efficiency and “man made global warming” that concerns me. I note that when reference is being made to global warming in recent news and current affairs programs the “man made” preface is being dropped.

Anyway, I’ve had a read at all the replies here and I’m thinking hmm! I may not be the best at making friends and influencing people after all. Back to the music.

Ray


----------

