Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Further reasons why I have no respect for the Peace Prize or its recipients.

Rush Limbaugh was also nominated this year.

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Rush Limbaugh was also nominated this year.

He shouldn't be either.


Nobel Peace Prize is for someone that genuinely does something for mankind that no one has ever even heard about it.


It's not for politicians, celebrities, or other popular people.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

And you are the one talking about long term predictions being wrong.

You made the statement that they have been proven wrong. Lets see it.

the short term ones have been wrong (10-30 years)

So how can any of the long term ones be right ?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

the short term ones have been wrong (10-30 years)

So how can any of the long term ones be right ?

We can pretty accuratly tell how long the sun will live. We aren't nearly as accurate when we try and forecast sunspots.

We can pretty accuratly say how the earths plates are shifting and how they will look far off into the future. We can't forecast earthquakes or eruptions.

Same for climatology.

[JSmythe]

Actually we've mapped the sunspot cycle pretty damn well.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by R-Type

or maybe the real issue is that conservative politicians have a problem with global warming because its implications will negatively affect the bottom lines of their main campaign sponsors. It's only natural to assume they'll put out all kinds of propaganda to debunk it. The real question you should ask yourself is what ulterior motive do these scientists have for lying if that's what you think they're doing.

And this has to do with Al Gore's award for peace?

Bias is not lying. It is a preconcieved notions of results and looking for data to confirm these notions and skepticism of data that contadicts.


There is no left socialist agenda on global warming that effects the presentation of science? Take a good look at Earth Day since it began. You will find one anti-capitalist speech after another. Even while the Soviet Union and China did their share of damage. This is not unlike the anti-Nuke panic of the 70's and early 80's. I am not saying there is no subtance to the global warming claims, just that you have a mountain of Hype to remove before you get to it!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We can pretty accuratly tell how long the sun will live. We aren't nearly as accurate when we try and forecast sunspots.

We can pretty accuratly say how the earths plates are shifting and how they will look far off into the future. We can't forecast earthquakes or eruptions.

Same for climatology.

Yeah, we are real good at the long term prediction models long after we are all dead and no empirical evidence can be given!



empirical: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We can pretty accuratly tell how long the sun will live. We aren't nearly as accurate when we try and forecast sunspots.

We can pretty accuratly say how the earths plates are shifting and how they will look far off into the future. We can't forecast earthquakes or eruptions.

Same for climatology.

We arent trying to change our entire economy to ward off the dangers of sunspots though.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

We arent trying to change our entire economy to ward off the dangers of sunspots though.

The funny thing is if some of the predictions are right, it will cause more damage to the economy than a slow transition would have

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And this has to do with Al Gore's award for peace?

Bias is not lying. It is a preconcieved notions of results and looking for data to confirm these notions and skepticism of data that contadicts.

if that's what it is, how is your argument any better when it's basically the same thing? Theoretically he's being awarded because of altruistic effort towards the cause. Do I agree he deserves it? I haven't decided.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There is no left socialist agenda on global warming that effects the presentation of science? Take a good look at Earth Day since it began. You will find one anti-capitalist speech after another. Even while the Soviet Union and China did their share of damage. This is not unlike the anti-Nuke panic of the 70's and early 80's. I am not saying there is no subtance to the global warming claims, just that you have a mountain of Hype to remove before you get to it!

Ok. Please explain this 'socialist agenda' succinctly. What do they have to gain with all this besides the defense of the truth? See, unless there's some good proof otherwise, I'd have to assume that these accusations of 'liberal conspiracies' are just more FUD thrown up to cloud the issue. The stakes for right-wing financial contributors are plain as day. I'm on the side of fact finding, not political bullshit, and scientists are far better at doing this than any crackpot political group, right or left. Since our beloved president and his party have seen fit to bribe people and 'edit' reports to suit their agendas, at the moment, I'm less trusting of them than the 'socialists' when it comes to scientific research.

Btw, the right-wing indifference towards environment doesn't just address global warming, but virtually every other situation where business expediency encroaches on it: vehicle emissions, industrial pollution, farming, logging, fishing, powerfield emissions, you name it. A business, by its nature, always tries to cut as much cost out as possible, which is fine except when the cost cutting starts to cause harm to those around it. The most expedient thing might be to dump waste into the local water supply, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow it to do so. Sure, the market might 'respond' when all the customers get sick from exposure, but that's counterproductive, don't you think? how much suffering must occur before a proper 'response' is generated? Do we take action preemptively, or do we wait for the market to respond to a cataclysm? ...and this is the party that's supposed to be about proactive 'self-responsibility'? The bottom line is the people who fund the right-wing can't (or won't or don't want to) even TRY to pick up their own garbage because it costs money. I fully understand that some needed industry puts out wastes that are harmful and cannot be entirely contained, but that doesn't mean we should burrow our heads in the sand and do nothing to seal as many of those gaps as we can.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Half a century ago we were supposed to be living in igloos right now.

Also keep in mind the climate change has increased about 1 degree Celsius over the past century. There was more of a temperature increase during the first 50 years when we were dumping far less CO2 into the atmosphere. If more CO2 = higher temperatures, something isn't adding up.

The planet Earth is supposed to be in a cooling cycle right now, according to the one-thousand-six-hundred page IPCC research, which have all been (reportedly every single sentence was scrutinized before release) heavily reviewed documents -- reported on worldwide this morning.

But because of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere we are not cooling as the normal cycle dictates.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're in the minority? I think most folsk view him as overthe top hell even the dems here at work with only two exceptions think he is over the top.

I don't have them on me but he's polled ahead of the top republicans at certain points, and Bush in 2004 but he didn't want to get in, global warming is his passion, it's far more important as well

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The funny thing is if some of the predictions are right, it will cause more damage to the economy than a slow transition would have

The problem is our current "fix" will do a lot of damage for very little good.


If any of the main stream predictions are correct, the 1/4-1/2C from kyoto wont do shit. But it will cost an exorbitant amount.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Rush Limbaugh was also nominated this year.

ugh.. no he wasnt

he was "nominated" by some douchebag wanting to make a mockery of the gore nomination...that "nomination" will go straight to the circular file

gore was officially nominated by the nobel organization

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The problem is our current "fix" will do a lot of damage for very little good.

Plz explain how reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will "do a lot of damage".

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Plz explain how reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will "do a lot of damage".

The kyoto plan will cost 40% of the world's GDP.
CA's plan to reduce emissions 25% cannot be achieved even if we remove every single automobile AND convert every single watt of electricity into clean power.





How will it not do a lot of damage ?

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The kyoto plan will cost 40% of the world's GDP.
CA's plan to reduce emissions 25% cannot be achieved even if we remove every single automobile AND convert every single watt of electricity into clean power.

Kyoto is shit, I agree. I'd have to look at CA's plan as I don't live there. I would be surprised if they set that target without any actual plan behind it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

ugh.. no he wasnt

he was "nominated" by some douchebag wanting to make a mockery of the gore nomination...that "nomination" will go straight to the circular file

gore was officially nominated by the nobel organization

Good catch, thanks.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Rush Limbaugh was also nominated this year.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Ok. Please explain this 'socialist agenda' succinctly. What do they have to gain with all this besides the defense of the truth? See, unless there's some good proof otherwise, I'd have to assume that these accusations of 'liberal conspiracies' are just more FUD thrown up to cloud the issue. The stakes for right-wing financial contributors are plain as day. I'm on the side of fact finding, not political bullshit, and scientists are far better at doing this than any crackpot political group, right or left. Since our beloved president and his party have seen fit to bribe people and 'edit' reports to suit their agendas, at the moment, I'm less trusting of them than the 'socialists' when it comes to scientific research.

I don't say it's a liberal conspiracy. I assume good intentions even among the uninformed unless I have evidence to the contrary. With that said my simple warning is that there are anti-capitalist sack riders who have been working the environmental movement for many decades now. Only recently has capitalism gained ground by developing and marketing new environment friendly technology. Do a google of the words 'Capitalism' and 'environment' and you will get some interesting mixed re