BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

Look around you, J.H.

Amos is closer to the truth than you are. It ain't liberals or democrats doing the slaughtering, it's concervative, corporate, republicans.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:26 AM

Oh yeah, that's gotta be right, Amos. Conservatives wish to slaughter, Liberals love humanity.

Life never gets too confusing for you, does it? :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:22 AM

Au contraire; I think the prerequisite you are thinking of is a disposition towards humanity, which is of course something that makes you more liberal than not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: curmudgeon
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:15 AM

Theodore Roosevelt?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 10:12 AM

"watch: now that Gore has won this award, the right wing propaganda machine will turn and attack the Nobel Prize itself..."

That's not a prediction. (Though the right wing has no more of a "propaganda machine" than does the left) It has never been lost on those from a more conservative point of view that the FIRST prerequisite to winning a Nobel Peace Prize is that one MUST be from the left. Just try to find an exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 09:25 AM

Giegengack is a very,very smart guy (and excellent sense of humor). He does not deny global warming, and does not deny a human contribution. His main, oft-repeated, point is that in the list of threats facing the human race, global warming is there, but probably does not make the top 10. Now *that* is a statement that ought to strike fear.

-change of subject-

When we first heard that Gore had won, the person I was travelling with said "watch: now that Gore has won this award, the right wing propaganda machine will turn and attack the Nobel Prize itself..."

I think we are seeing just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: astro
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 03:53 AM

It seems that stubbornness takes the place of common sense. Let's say for argument sake that global warming is a completely natural event, which the majority of the scientific community dissents with (speaking as one from that community), it still is true that most of the world views it as not.

Thus, governments are legislating the use of environmentally friendly materials, systems, and policy. It would be very bad policy on our part not to take part in this new economy.

Besides, what do we end up with: less environmental pollution, efficient energy systems thus leading to less dependence, and a show of prudence that would help our children and the world that they will inherit. Or, we can stupidly burn the resources that we are currently using regardless of the consequences. Only to win an argument.

Which is wiser? My bet and vote would be with Mr. Gore. Certainly not with those who are only concerned with that bet.

And besides, what if you are wrong and the effects of global warming are related to human interactions with the environment? It's time to be prudent and wise. Time to stop wanting to win just an argument and think better about the economies involved. Our children and their children's lives depend upon our wise decisions now.

Astro

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John O'L
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:07 PM

Once again Peace has pipped me at the post. I too have heard enough of pedants insisting that global warming is a natural process, and should therefore be allowed to progress in its natural way until life on earth is extinguished.

Maybe this is an opportunity for us to show just how clever we have become.
So global warming is natural. So is are club feet, which are routinely treated and cured.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

Well, the first thing I thought of tonight when I heard this on the news is just how differently the fortunes of the two principles in Bush v. Gore have gone...


Though he would never admit it, I'm sure that Bush would galdly trade places with Gore if he could...

Good job, Al, and keep on truckin' but...

...forget about being president 'cause it clearly would be a demotion...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 07:36 PM

He focused on fear. CO2 may make this change, but we'd like to be sure of that. And even if it does, he didn't offer any solution, and neither has anybody else. He ignored the real threat, which is India and China, and he ignored other more immediate environmental problems.

What this navel-gazing professor doesn't get, and what so many of the environmental philosophers I know don't seem to get is that if you can't get the attention of the average American and put it in terms they understand, you're just talking among yourselves and preaching to the choir.

That professor can continue to discuss it in the terms he wants, but in case he hasn't noticed, the attention span of the average American in their SUV with their cell phone up to their ear is pretty damned short. And thanks to the dumbing down of the American schools over the years and the inward versus outward looking nature of the American and his role in the world, he isn't going to notice India and China. Yes, they need to not get as bad as they can get, and they need to improve, but we need to improve now and we are bad now. So stop passing the buck to others and get to work here.

The "real threat" is here and it is us. Along with everyone else. (I wonder if this is a professor in an endowed chair--who paid for that position?)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:09 PM

"..the real threat, which is India and China..." - but he missed out the next bit which should have been "if they copy the example set by the United States and Europe".

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:06 PM

". . . size. . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:01 PM

The sixe of the font has nothing to do with the accuracy of the article.

I just thought I'd mention that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 05:01 PM

You know, I really don't give a rat's ass whether or not 'global warming' is caused by humans or nature or some weird combination of both. The fact is that climate IS changing and the poles are melting more than usual. Let's suppose Gore and the group are wrong. What harm will have been done by their attempts to clean up pollution going into Earth's atmosphere? Now, consider the converse/reverse, and stop being so damned dense. You may be going to live for a few more years and hey, it's not your problem anymore. Hell, I have that many to go myself. BUT, I have kids, and they deserve a life.

Kersiste, some people can be so fuckin' selfish.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

Bull.

You will find he addresses data much further back than 1970 if you bother listening to his actual presentation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: GLoux
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:38 PM

From http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?1247&soc

An Inaccurate Truth?

May 15, 2007

By: The Pennsylvania Gazette

Scientists have theorized about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century, and today we are closer than ever to understanding the complex processes that sustain life on Earth. But the science of climate change is as complex as the politics are contentious. In recent years a sharp increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a primary greenhouse gas, has aligned with rising global temperatures. This trend was explored in Al Gore's provocative documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which illustrated the potentially grave consequences with computer-rendered doomsday scenarios.

Professor Robert Giegengack of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science, has a substantially different view on climate change. "I'm not telling anybody to not worry," he explains. "I'm just unhappy about the way Gore presented it." By using a minuscule timeframe and appealing to fear, Giegengack argues, Gore produced an inaccurate report, "a political statement [that] has to go head-to-head with what comes out of Washington or the American Petroleum Institute." Giegengack contends that natural warming periods in our planet's past have triggered the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from ocean- and land-based reservoirs, and that the most significant consequence of human fossil-fuel consumption is that we have altered that balance by pouring CO2 into the atmosphere and those terrestrial reservoirs simultaneously. Since that relationship has been disturbed, he says, even a drastic reduction in CO2 pollution may not restore the natural dynamic. The Gazette's Carter Johns recently spoke to Giegengack about Gore's film, climate-change science, and the environmental problems that really scare him.

What is your assessment of the threat global warming poses to the environment?

There are plenty of environmental problems out there; most of them are the consequence of a lot of people using a lot of energy. Global warming is a symptom of that fundamental problem. It's one of many symptoms; it's not the most severe. In terms of its capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10.

What problem do you have with Gore's film?

The advocates of change are now appealing to fear as brazenly as the proponents of business-as-usual. [The latter] tell us we can't afford to cut back on our carbon emissions because it would destroy the economy. The other side says the world is going to hell and the polar bears are drowning. Both are extreme positions. Scientists have gotten tied up in this political argument because they were frustrated that the politicians weren't paying attention to what they said. In order to make the message more apparent to the public, they're exaggerating the risks. An Inconvenient Truth is a prime example.

What are some examples of these misleading statements?

He claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. Variations in planetary alignment are most likely responsible … When gravitation from other planets' orbits causes the Earth to move closer to or further from the sun, temperatures increase or decrease. When we find that CO2 levels follow that directly, it's hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2.

How does that work?

Certain "feedback loops" naturally control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of solution in the ocean and releases them. Microorganisms in soil become more active; they chew up leaves and emit CO2. Permafrost melts near the poles and trapped methane escapes and flows into the atmosphere ... [Today, humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons is going somewhere else. In the past, when the Earth's climate rose, CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it won't reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations.

Doesn't he appeal to scientific opinion, though, in saying human carbon emissions are responsible for warming?

Gore mentions 928 recent articles, saying they all agree that warming is human-caused. However, the majority of them are reports such as [that] ice is receding. If I wrote an article about the rate of retreat of the permafrost and added, "By the way, this is caused by humans," an editor would cut it out. When you write a scientific article, you don't politicize. You just present the data. What he found in those articles is that nobody said warming isn't the result of human activity. No one's going to say that either. They are dispassionate scientific observations of what's going on in the world.

What are some other misrepresentations or exaggerations that Gore makes?

He shows simulations of coastal lands flooding that would require a six-meter sea level rise. At [a standard rate of] two millimeters per year, that will take over 3,000 years. He didn't say that. He shows pictures of drowning polar bears, but he doesn't address the question of what the polar bears did in the last non-glacial period. Polar bears have been around through many of those cycles. Today as the ice melts, they have no place to go because we have compromised their habitats.

Why does Gore use "Since 1970…" as a frame for most of his arguments?

There was a global cooling episode that started in 1941, and lasted until about 1976; some people would say that the coldest time was about 1970, at which time it turned around and started to warm again. So for him it's useful to put the time between 1970 and 2005 because you don't have to worry about the fact that between 1945 and 1975 there was cooling. The best way to document the most drastic changes is to look only at those 35 years.

What has been the evolution of the politicization of environmental issues?

When I first learned about global warming in 1957, it wasn't given a lot of political attention. In 1976 people were talking about it, but politicians didn't pay any attention until about 1988. The Missouri River got so low that barges were stranded and trade traffic, which was a big part of the heartland economy, slowed considerably. There were huge fires at Yellowstone. As a consequence, politicians started to notice. They jumped on the bandwagon because there were political ends to be gained by laying the blame somewhere and being an environmental hero. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established at the same time. The IPCC, UNESCO, and the National Science Foundation have spent a lot of money supporting climatic research. The issue has acquired the attention it didn't have before 1988, and it deserves more attention. But if you're one of the people whose future as a scientist depends on continued funding from one of these agencies, you're not going to say "My findings are uncertain," or "It's going on but I don't think humans are at risk." Data that represents the largest threat to human welfare and security is more likely to attract funding than a carefully worded scientific assessment. So I think that is a major factor: people pursuing what is in vogue.

What response have you gotten about your thoughts on the film?

People appreciated that I was drawing attention to the weaknesses in the film. Al Gore missed out on a really terrific opportunity with his name recognition, his access to these resources, and his pretty good understanding of climate processes. He could have put together a film that would have presented this problem in a rational context, and that would have been an enormous contribution. But he has abandoned the credibility of the scientific establishment. He missed the point in studying the cycles from prior periods, and he missed the point that it is the temperature that controls the CO2. Now, we have probably changed that because of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and we know or suspect that because we know we have reversed the flux. That's probably the most significant finding: that we changed the way those systems operate.

So it's not that Gore is wrong, but that he portrayed the "crisis" inaccurately?

He focused on fear. CO2 may make this change, but we'd like to be sure of that. And even if it does, he didn't offer any solution, and neither has anybody else. He ignored the real threat, which is India and China, and he ignored other more immediate environmental problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 03:17 PM

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis--a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

"Thank you,"

Al Gore
[e-mail]

10/12/07

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:57 PM

I think it's a tremendous irony that Gore, who was denied the U.S. presidency because of votes syphoned off by The Green Party, should win the Nobel Prize for espousing ideas central to The Green Party's platform.

He's expressed reluctance to enter the 2008 presidential race because he'd be going against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps instead of seeking the Democratic nomination he should run as The Green Party candidate. If he were to do so and win, the irony would truly have come full-circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:31 PM

John on the Sunset Coast sez:

The prize doesn't make him right...only politically correct.

Google articles regarding man-made global warming and you will find hundreds of articles of scientific dissent.

Generally you don't go to Google for peer reviewed scientific articles. They are behind logon portals for member libraries and individual subscribers. Sometimes they're even printed on paper where Google can't reach them. Wikipedia doesn't count as a source of good science, even though some of the essays might be accurate for a few minutes at a time, before naysayers purge or adulterate them.

Park your Hummer, pull your weeds by hand instead of spraying with noxious chemicals, wash your clothes instead of dry cleaning, recycle, buy organic fruits and veggies, plant a tree, put in a few solar panels, and you, too, can help reduce greenhouse gases.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:19 PM

Bravo, Mr. Gore! Bravo!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 02:09 PM

Yes, indeed. A hearty BRAVO!!

Run for Pres? No way. He can do far more good with far less bullshit. And, he can afford to wait for a couple of more terms to return. He may be even more saleable in future. In the meantime, he can enjoy his family amongst other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 01:53 PM

"scientific dissent" - well, that's one word for it.

You find all sorts on the Net. Here's a link to the Flat Earth Society.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Leadbelly
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:42 PM

Amos, indeed: the USA should proud of Al Gore. Well done, Al!!!

Manfred

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

It appears to me that you are selectively reading the literature, and watching a polemical film. Google articles regarding man-made global warming and you will find hundreds of articles of scientific dissent.
The so-called rationale of the committee is in itself an opinion, not a fact. Climate and weather over the millenia have been causes for migration and war...nothing new here.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 12:30 PM

could it be there is no, or little, science there

Well, John, the major thrust of his presentation is based on peer-reviewed statistical observations. His sources are provided.

So I would say, no.

If you feel there are substantive counter-hyptheses, with supporting data, there's at least one thread on which to raise the issue. In addition, it should be pointed out again that the network of scientists constituting the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not engaged in idle rhetorical displays. Yet their data seems to sorrespond well with Mister Gore's.   


The rationale for his being given the Peace prize is because (a) he is not himself a scientist and (b)the issues he makes widely known will become a central cause of the disruption of peace, unless they are addressed; in fact, the Committee pointed out, this is alreayd beginning to happen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:58 AM

"Earlier this week, a group of US Democrats placed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times urging Mr Gore to jump into the race for the White House. In an open letter, they told him "your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save"."

It would certainly give the USA something it sorely needs: A credible candidate. All the mud that can be flung HAS been flung. I hope he agrees to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:57 AM

The prize doesn't make him right...only politically correct.
One wonders why the award is the Peace medal, rather than the Science medal; could it be there is no, or little, science there?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 11:54 AM

There is new talk of Al Gore running for the presidency. I'm of two minds.
One: I hope he does not. I like the role he is filling now.
Two: I think he is eminently electable.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:29 AM

Good news. Slowly but surely people are beginning to figure out that they're fouling their air and need to think about how their choices impact the environment and from there make the choice to make less impact. It had to be come a popular culture cause because it wasn't going far with scientists and environmentalists speaking among themselves.

Now if the U.S. will adequately fund the rail system and local commuter rails and make rapid transit more widely available and affordable and make that second family car obsolete we'll have a good start.

I work in a large city that doesn't have a public transit system. They have the Ballpark (Texas Rangers), they have Six Flags Over Texas, and other very large tourist attractions, they are building a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys and have learned that they get the Superbowl for some game way out in the future. But they don't have the simplest bus or train system in place. There is a train that runs from Fort Worth to Dallas and passes nearby, but that is the extent of it. In a world that has allowed the continual purchase and destruction of entire neighborhoods so they can raze them and pave for more parking lots, you'd think someone would get the idea. Not so far. But maybe Al can get enough attention some of these city officials will finally catch on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:26 AM

I see nothing shocking to it; he made a major contribution in disseminating the facts of the case; and it should be emphasized, as well, that he shared the prize with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its efforts to alert the world to the threat of global warming. "The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," the citation said. " (NYT story on the award). What is so surprising, John?

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:17 AM

What a shocking choice!   The surprises never cease.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 10:13 AM

Heh! I was glad to see this.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

numberusa.com gives Al Gore an A- on his stand on immigration. The only ones with better grades are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:47 AM

IRony of chilling porportions, Mr Peace! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

Gore, Bush, Gore, Bush: What to DO?

Subject: BS: Well Done, Mister Gore!
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:39 AM

"Prize Caps Year of Highs for Gore

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 12, 2007
For Al Gore, winning the Nobel Peace Prize today is the latest twist in a remarkable decade of soaring highs and painful lows. In the span of the last decade he went from being the vice president to being the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to winning the popular vote for president only to lose in the Electoral College — after an intervention by the Supreme Court made his 537-vote loss in Florida official."

This is a man to be proud of. Nobel Peace Prize AND Academy Award. Articulate, compassionate, thoughtful and competent.


Well done, Mister Gore. Congratulations. And thanks for showing the Right Stuff in spite of huge temptations not to. You make the Rovian Supremes look like ugly wizened gnomes.

A